FY 2000 proposal 199801700

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
199801700 Narrative	Narrative
199801700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams on Lower North Fork John Day
Proposal ID	199801700
Organization	North Fork John Day Watershed Council (NFJDWC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Robert Stubblefield
Mailing address	P.O. Box 95 Monument, OR 97864
Phone / email	5419342141 / waterguy@transport.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Modify irrigation pumping stations by replacing above-ground suction screens with sub-surface collectors. Eliminate flow modification, migration impediments, and vegetation disruption and destruction inflicted during construction of gravel push-up dams.
Target species	Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead, Resident Rainbow

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1998	Installation of River Meadows permanent pumping station.
1998	Installation of Schultz Ranch permanent pumping station.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2000 cost
Personnel	North Fork John Day Watershed Council Coordinator and Monument SWCD Monitoring Coordinator	$15,000
Fringe		$0
Supplies		$35,000
Operating	Water quality monitoring and cleaning/flushing of systems previously installed.	$10,000
Travel		$750
Indirect		$2,000
Other	Outside consulting	$2,500
Subcontractor		$25,000
		$90,250

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$90,250
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$90,250
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
North Fork John Day Watershed Council	Labor, monitoring equipment	$17,920	unknown
Monument SWCD	Clerical, accounting, and office support.	$2,500	unknown
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs	Technical assistance	$1,000	unknown
NRCS	Engineering, Technical assistance	$2,500	unknown
ODFW	Technical assistance, screening	$2,000	unknown
Landowners	Labor and construction equipment	$4,500	unknown
BLM	Cultural Resource Inventories	$3,000	unknown

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: All instream work must be completed within ODFW and DSL instream work period (July 15-August 31 on lower North Fork John Day).

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Delay Funding

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until biological monitoring questions beyond water quality are addressed.

Comments: This is potentially a good project with a strong chance of success, but the proposal should include greater detail and further describe the methods intended to accomplish seven broadly stated objectives. It appears to rely heavily on the voluntary efforts of many different entities, all without assurance of their participation.

Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: The proposal should discuss alternatives to the construction of infiltration galleries. The project should be coordinated with Proposal No. 20077. The proposal does not indicate the level of cooperation between the North Fork John Day Watershed Council and the Bureau of Reclamation. Baseline data are needed on how many dams exist along the Lower North Fork, their locations or the identities or potential support of the affected landowners. The extent or significance of habitat damage as a consequence of spring washouts should also be documented. Reviewers suggest that baseline data collection and monitoring for trends in use by anadromous and resident fish be coordinated with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.

Additional detail would be welcome on methods by which push-up dams would be replaced and the effects monitored. Can expected benefits to water quality and fish stocks be quantified? How many miles of stream are expected to be improved? How much salmonid habitat will result from replacing the push-up dams? What is the scope and extent of water temperature problems associated with the push-up dams? Might replacement infiltration galleries produce any negative effects? How are water quality and turbidity to be monitored, how frequently, and where, above or below the pools? How many sites are to be monitored, and during what periods (e.g., during the irrigation season?)? How many landowners are expected to participate?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

#1-ODFW concerns with use of infiltration galleries. #6-Needs O&M, requesting some BPA O&M, shows no other sources. #12-No demonstration in proposal.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Well written proposal that demonstrates good benefits.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. The sponsor provided adequate responses to most of the specific ISRP comments, but the sponsor did not adequately address the ISRP recommendation to "Delay funding until biological monitoring questions beyond water quality are addressed." The sponsor did acknowledge that they would investigate coordination with Project No. 9801600 (Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook). However, evidence of existence of adequate data is not provided, and they do not demonstrate how they will use this data to measure the success of their project. Similarly, we strongly suggest coordination with project #9703400 (Monitor Fine Sediments and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers).

Granted this is not a 'research project', but monitoring for effectiveness of the project is a necessary component called for in the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$105,134	$105,134	$105,134

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website