FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 200102500
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 |
|---|---|
| 21009 Narrative | Narrative |
| 21009 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Columbia Gorge: Big White Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Gorge: Big White Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek associated with restoration efforts |
| Proposal ID | 200102500 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Underwood Conservation District, Yakama Nation (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Patrick J. Connolly |
| Mailing address | USGS, Colmbia River Research Lab, 5501A Cook-Underwood Road Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / patrick_connolly@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / White Salmon |
| Short description | Address a unique opportunity to document habitat conditions and fish population status within the Rattlesnake Creek watershed prior to major habitat restoration activities and before Condit Dam removal and the reintroduction of anadromous salmonids. |
| Target species | rainbow trout (steelhead), cutthroat trout (resident and anadromous), coho and chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.86 | -121.38 | Rattlesnake 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 |
|---|
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 2001 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 2001 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Characterize stream and riparian habitat conditions in Rattlesnake Creek drainage. [UCD, YN, USGS] | a. Measure water quality, water quantity, stream habitat, and riparian conditions. [UCD, YN, USGS] | FY 01-03 | $90,764 | |
| b. Describe geomorphology of the watershed. [UCD] | FY 01-02 | $6,480 | ||
| c. Determine background levels of stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the Rattlesnake Creek drainage. [UCD] | FY 01-02 | $10,930 | ||
| 2. Determine the status of fish populations in the Rattlesnake Creek drainage. | a. Derive estimates of salmonid population abundance. [YN, USGS] | FY 01-03 | $80,559 | |
| b. Determine fish species composition, distribution, and life history attributes within the watershed. [YN, USGS] | FY 01-03 | $39,218 | ||
| c. Determine existing kinds, distribution, and severity of fish diseases in the watershed. [USFWS, YN, USGS] | FY 01-03 | $0 | ||
| d. Obtain and archive tissue samples in a non-lethal manner for possible future genetic analysis. [YN, USGS] | FY 01-03 | $0 | ||
| 3. Use the collected habitat and fisheries information to help identify and prioritize areas in need of restoration. | a. Estimate current and potential carrying capacity for rearing stages of juvenile salmonids (out-year work). [YN, USGS] | FY 03 | $0 | |
| b. Conduct a limiting factor analysis on the combined fish and habitat data (out-year work). [YN, USGS] | FY 03 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|---|
| $255,921 | $252,884 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: USGS: 57,381 UCD: 18,431 YN: 25,396 | $101,207 |
| Fringe | USGS: 12,025 UCD: 5,529 YN: 6,426 | $23,980 |
| Supplies | USGS: 21,900 UCD: 3,400 YN: 2,650 | $27,950 |
| Travel | USGS: 2,430 UCD: 2,550 YN: 6,180 | $11,160 |
| Indirect | USGS: 31,401 UCD: 4,600 YN: 9,553 | $45,554 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 1000 | $2,400 |
| Subcontractor | UCD | $13,200 |
| Other | UCD | $2,500 |
| $227,951 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $227,951 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $227,951 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
NA
Reason for change in scope
NA
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| UCD | Professional personnel hours geomorphological surveys | $6,400 | in-kind |
| USFWS-Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center | Disease profiles of wild fish in the Rattlesnake Creek drainage | $15,000 | in-kind |
| WDFW | Consultation and participation, primarily during FY 03. | $3,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns. This appears to be a good opportunity for proposers to take full advantage of the opportunity to study the anadromous - resident fish interactions with the removal of the dam. This is a very well written proposal that presents good justification for the documentation of pre-restoration work and the benefit of that work in guiding the direction of restoration. The proposal is comprehensive, including a wide range of tasks. The discussion of limiting factors was, however, weak and generic and did not demonstrate a strong understanding of the system.Potential information transfer needs to be better described. Costs for assessment and prescription appear very high, compared to other areas, and need fuller justification. The proposed cutthroat trout survey work seemed redundant with that proposed by proposal #21012.
Also, what are the risks to the cutthroat trout population and other resident salmonids following dam removal, and how will those risks be dealt with?
Comment:
Condit Dam is slated for removal in 2006. This project provides a great opportunity to document the baseline data in this system prior to dam removal.FY 01 Budget Review Comments: This project provides a tremendous opportunity to monitor the river before and after dam removal.
Comment:
Fundable, the response was adequate to address most of the ISRP concerns. The likely removal of the Condit dam does provide a unique opportunity and timely need for better data. However, costs of proposed actions are relatively high. We suggest that the contract provide a list of deliverables with costs justified adequately.Comment:
WHITE SALMON ISSUE 1: Response to ISRP criticisms of priority proposal for baseline information collection
The ISRP supports collection of baseline information before removal of Condit Dam (proposal 21009) but lists enough concerns for Council to condition any approval on clearer scope definition.
Staff recommendation:
Assume the proposed budget but request a Bonneville report addressing ISRP concerns as a condition before contracting.
Adjustment to consensus priority budget: None.
WHITE SALMON ISSUE 2: Priority for initiating watershed restoration proposal
The White Salmon River watershed enhancement proposal (proposal 21009) is a second-tier priority for CBFWA, but was rated as fundable by the ISRP. If the Council holds to "urgent/high priority" projects as the baseline of recommended projects, this project will not be started.
Staff recommendation: CBFWA's recommendation was appropriate - this proposal is a lower priority until the schedule for removal of Condit Dam is set and responsibilities for associated restoration activities are defined.
Comment:
Comment:
No change in scope. Low accrual is due to late billing, field work going on right now. Trying to improve billing effectiveness. Assessing effectiveness of passage for Condit Dam removal.Comment:
This is a multiagency project. The funding split is as follows: FY2004: $272,300 (UCD--$48,288; YN--$11,583; USGS--$212,429) FY2005: $286,038 (UCD--$51,750; YN--$11,583; USGS--$222,705) Justification: 1) Increasing amount of personnel time associated with field work in spring, fall, and winter, in addition to summer. This increased work is within the original scope of the project, and is associated with increased PIT tagging efforts and increased efforts to recapture tagged trout throughout the year. It follows that increased field work increases the amount of data collected, which increases the amount of data to process and analyze. 2) Salary increases and cost of living adjustments for an experienced crew. The continuity of field personnel pays large benefits in terms of efficiency of efforts and breadth of accomplishments. No cost of living adjustment was considered in FY2003 budget, but the FY2004 salary rates are about 12% higher than in FY2002 for any one individual with continuity.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $252,884 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website