FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 200102000
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 21001 Narrative | Narrative |
| Columbia Gorge: Fifteenmile Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Gorge: Fifteenmile Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Fifteenmile Creek Riparian Fencing / Physical stream Survey Project |
| Proposal ID | 200102000 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Steven L. Springston And Rodney A. French |
| Mailing address | 3450 West 10th The Dalles, OR. 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5412968026 / fifteenmile@gorge.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Allen R. Dale |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Fifteenmile |
| Short description | Construct approximately 30 miles of riparian protection fence over a three year period along Fifteenmile Creek and it's tributaries. Conduct a phyical stream of 90 miles of privatly owned stream in the Fifteenmile Subbasin. |
| Target species | Fish and Wildlife endemic to the Fifteenmile Creek Subbasin, primary target species; Winter Steelhead, Spring Chinook, Redband Trout, Pacific Lamprey. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.5048 | -121.074 | Fifteenmile Creek |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we have constructed 97.4 miles of riparian protection fence. |
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we continue to maintain 97.4 miles of riparian protection fence. |
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we have constructed 946 instream fish habitat structures. |
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we continue to maintain the 946 instream fish habitat structures. |
| 2000 | From 1998 to present we have eliminated 12 high maintenance water gaps by providing off stream livestock water using solar pumping stations. |
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we have monitored stream temperatures at 12 locations throughout the basin from April to November. |
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we have provided photo documentation at 41 established locations throughout the basin. |
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we have conducted spawning ground surveys throughout the basin. |
| 2000 | From 1986 to present we have coordinated field activities with other organizations, agencies and landowners to insure maximum technology transfer. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 19904200 | Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project | Share equipment, tools, and some personnel. |
| 199304001 | Fifteenmile Creek Wild Steelhead Smolt Monitoring | Share office space, equipment, tools, data, and some personnel. |
| 199802100 | Hood River Fish Habitat / Implement Habitat improvement actions | Share some equipment and tools. |
| 198805303 | Hood River Production Program / CTWS M&E | Share some equipment and tools occasionally |
| 199301900 | Hood River Production Program - Oak Springs, Powerdale, Parkdale, / O&M | Share some equipment and tools occasionally |
| 199880304 | Hood River Production Program / ODFW M&E | Share office space, equipment, tools, data, and some personnel. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective # 1 Plan and prepare for fence construction | a. Identify project work sites. | 3 | $2,388 | |
| b. Obtain landowner permission and agreements. | 3 | $2,388 | ||
| c. Engineer and design fence construction projects. | 3 | $3,584 | ||
| d. Write fence construction contracts and specifications. | 3 | $2,388 | ||
| e. Develop fence construction materials specifications. | 3 | $2,388 | ||
| Objective # 2 Plan and prepare for physical stream survey | a. Assemble necessary tools, equipment, manpower, and work out logistics. | 1 | $4,781 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|---|
| $20,811 | $22,811 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective # 1. Implement construction of riparian protection fence | a. Purchase 10 miles of fence construction materials | 3 | $37,993 | |
| b. Construct 10 miles of riparian protection fence | 3 | $50,640 | ||
| f. Administer Construction Contracts | 3 | $3,135 | ||
| Objective # 2. Conduct physical stream survey on approximately 90 miles of stream | Conduct stream survey | 1 | $42,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|---|
| $136,768 | $139,768 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: .5 | $15,034 |
| Fringe | OPE = 0.40 % | $6,031 |
| Supplies | Ten miles of fence construction materials & supplies | $30,000 |
| Travel | N/A | $0 |
| Indirect | 0.266 % | $7,980 |
| Capital | N/A | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Stream Survey Crew | $42,000 |
| Other | Fence contractors 10 miles @ $5,064 per mile | $50,640 |
| $151,685 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $151,685 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $151,685 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA project 198805304 | Share office space, office expenses, tools, and machine shop. | $17,000 | cash |
| BPA project 199304001 | Share office space, office expenses, tools, and machine shop. | $3,500 | cash |
| BPA project 199304000 | Share office space, office expenses, tools, and machine shop. | $17,000 | cash |
| NMFS Fish Screening & Passage Project | Share office space, office expenses, tools, and machine shop. | $12,000 | cash |
| Local Landowners | Assess to private lands for the purpose of constructing riparian protection fence and conducting physical stream survey. | $0 | in-kind |
| Fifteenmile Creek Watershed Council | Support. | $0 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Oct 6, 2000
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. This project should be rolled into the habitat restoration proposal 199304000 and they should explore cost saving by seeking alternatives to 15 year leases. The fencing work to date is an impressive record, and the proposed work finishes the task (maintenance will need to continue). They might also consider tree planting to accelerate the recovery process. However, the proposal and presentation did not indicate that steelhead rear in the lower sections - the majority of the spawning and rearing occurs in the upper part of the watershed, thus rehabilitation needs to focus to this area. The lower area has low flow and temperature problems and may partly be improved over time by the actions proposed, although the lower reaches are primarily a migration corridor. Nevertheless, other fish and wildlife may benefit from this fence work during summer rearing. The area fenced should be a function of the riparian area requirement and the local landscape and not a fixed width. An overall watershed restoration plan with tasks listed by order of importance is required. Evaluation and monitoring should be integrated within the province, and should be approached on a watershed scale where the treatment is restoration (all aspects) compared to no treatment, and where the response variables may be smolt yield or smolts per spawner at some point on the recruitment curve (max recruitment, MSY, or capacity production).Comment:
This project is functionally tied to Project 199304000. Because this is new work and an expanded scope for the original project, the work was submitted under a new project number. The ISRP comments focus on the lack of monitoring, however, this project has been underway for 15 years and monitoring has consistently been underfunded or not funded. Therefore, pre-treatment data is not available in this area. The ISRP suggests tree planting to accelerate the recovery process. The regional managers experience on the east side streams has been a poor success rate with tree planting. Also, there is concern that with artificial planting you may have a negative affect on the natural succession process. During the site visits the project sponsors explained that the habitat protection work began at the headwaters (at USFS boundary) and have been working their way downstream. As the work progresses downstream, the steelhead habitat has been expanding. This work is continuing on the same course and is proposed to be implemented on the downstream edge of existing steelhead habitat. The Fifteenmile Creek Watershed Council is currently working on a comprehensive watershed assessment. Until that plan is complete, the restoration in the Fifteenmile is prioritized according to an existing Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Implementation Plan developed by ODFW, CTWSRO and the USFW in 1987 included in the project proposal. Monitoring and evaluation should be included in future scopes of work to measure implementation of activities proposed here. To measure the direct effects on fish abundance with any scientific credibility is very difficult without an appropriate control stream for comparison.Comment:
Comment:
Fundable. Points of concern can likely be addressed in the Council review and BPA contract process. The contract process should note that rehabilitation efforts should be led by watershed assessment, including fish habitat assessment. The proponents responded to the concerns raised by ISRP and acknowledged that a watershed assessment, a listing of watershed rehabilitation tasks by priority of prescription, and improved monitoring and evaluation in Fifteen Mile Creek that is integrated within the Province is required. They added that these tasks are, nevertheless, beyond the scope of the proposal, but recognized that these tasks should proceed or compliment the rehabilitation work, and suggested that assessment is in progress. The lack of evidence of steelhead rearing in lower reaches and little presentation of information on steelhead life history remains a concern. Juvenile fish migration throughout the year is not evidence of rearing, and perhaps more of an indication of inadequate rearing space or conditions upstream (that get no better downstream) and a density dependent response, or migration to the Colombia.The fencing work and physical stream surveys proposed complete several years of similar effort, but there is little to suggest that this addresses key limiting factors. Cooperative agreements with landowners should reduce the costs of 15-year leases. They respond that natural re-generation is adequate and that tree-planting is not required. While the lower reaches appear as poor rearing habitat currently, recovery of the riparian zone to a mature canopy might provide more suitable habitat, in time, if not limited by some other factor. Without further indication from some index site or routine monitoring and evaluation, there is little to suggest that the fencing work to date was successful in providing rearing habitat and towards recovery of this population. While a treatment/control approach or before/after comparison is not available, evidence of relative utilization may be helpful.
Comment:
The Council must consider whether to fund more fencing without a provision for long-term maintenance. The fencing protects, in the short term, a listed species and responds to a measurable performance standard of the hydro Biological Opinion. As noted, the lack of long-term planning for maintenance of Bonneville-funded fencing is shared with restoration efforts in other subbasins (i.e. John Day, Grande Ronde, and the Clearwater). The Council should seek from Bonneville a schedule for developing long-term maintenance plans for riparian fencing or else factor into future funding decisions some form of a trust fund to pay for maintenance in perpetuity. The staff recommends the following course of action in Fifteenmile Creek: Support the resumption of fencing if it will be credited by the National Marine Fisheries Service for meeting the measurable performance standards of the Biological Opinion. Devise, with Bonneville, a proposal for alternatives to permanent funding for maintenance and review the issue again in the Plateau Review. The ISRP suggested a Columbia basinwide workshop on the subject.Comment:
Comment:
Seasonal accruals, so pace is picking up. 179043 spending cap. No change in scope or intent and dollars decrease for 04 and 05. Likely not going to spend all money by September. Should be on track for workplan in 03.Comment:
No comment submittedREVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
expense
Date:
May 2005
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $152,673 | $152,673 | $152,673 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website