FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 199304000
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 |
|---|---|
| 199304000 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 Habitat Restoration Project (Request For Multi-Year Funding) |
| Proposal ID | 199304000 |
| 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 | Provide for continued operation and maintenance of all completed habitat restoration measures within the Fifteenmile Subbasin. Continue photo documentation of habitat recovery and the collection of stream temperature data. |
| Target species | Fish and Wildlife endemic to the Fifteenmile Creek Subbasin, Winter Steelhead, Spring Chinook, Redband Trout, Pacific Lamprey. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.44 | -121.16 | Fifteenmile subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/BPA | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
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 Production Project | 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 ocasionally |
| 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, and some personnel |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Perform ongoing operation and maintenance of completed habitat treatment measures. | a. Inspect and evaluate riparian protection fences. | 8 | $12,802 | |
| b. Repair and maintenance of riparian protection fences. | 8 | $117,995 | ||
| c. Elimination of high maintenance actions fence | 8 | $10,006 | ||
| d. Inspect and evaluate instream habitat and bank stabilization structures. | 8 | $12,802 | ||
| e. Repair and maintenance of instream habitat and bank stabilization structures. | 8 | $9,804 | ||
| c. Elimination of high maintenance action items, instream structures | 8 | $2,007 | ||
| Project Coordination | a. Work with private landowners to promote land management activities beneficial to the protection riparian areas and watersheds. | 8 | $6,000 | |
| b. Coordinate field activities with other agencies and landowners. | 8 | $8,000 | ||
| c. Pursue outside funding & grants to expand habitat restoration within the project area. | 8 | $6,000 | ||
| d. Make presentations related to the Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project to agencies, schools and news media. | 8 | $1,500 | ||
| Project Administration | a. Provide quarterly project status reports to BPA. | 8 | $1,500 | |
| b. Provide annual project status report to BPA. | 8 | $1,200 | ||
| c. Respond to BPA request for meetings and project data as requested. | 8 | $1,200 | ||
| d. Supervise activities of program biologist, review all contracts, budgets, work statements, & construction contracts. | 8 | $5,000 | ||
| e. Provide secretarial support for program and project activities. | 8 | $17,604 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $216,420 | $219,420 | $222,420 | $225,420 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document recovery of riparian habitat within the Fifteenmile Creek Subbasin | Take photo point pictures at designated locations throughout the subbasin. | 8 | $3,310 | |
| Collect stream temperature data at 12 locations throughout the subbasin | 8 | $3,310 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6,951 | $7,282 | $7,613 | $7,944 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3.37 | $98,890 |
| Fringe | OPE = 0.395% | $37,567 |
| Supplies | Fence maintenance supplies | $34,956 |
| Travel | Training | $1,039 |
| Indirect | 0.266 % | $47,588 |
| $220,040 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $220,040 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $220,040 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $254,621 |
| % change from forecast | -13.6% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Cost savings resulting from the elimination of high maintenance action items.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA project number 198805304 | Share office expenses and machine shop. | $17,000 | cash |
| NMFS fish screening & passage project | Share office expenses, machine shop and heavy equipment. | $12,000 | cash |
| BPA project number 199304001 | Share office expenses and machine shop. | $3,500 | cash |
| Local landowners | Assess to private lands for the purpose of maintaining completed habitat treatment measures and data collection. | $0 | in-kind |
| BPA project number 199404200 | Share maintenance tractor and post pounder | $1,500 | cash |
| 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. Roll the proposal up into an overall watershed restoration plan that includes all related activities tied to watershed assessment, prescriptions listed by importance of implementation, rehabilitation plans, and a monitoring and evaluation stage that is coordinated within the province. The monitoring plan needs to go beyond the photopoint approach, and expanded to monitor key water quality, vegetation, and fish community responses. Comments from the FY2000 still apply. Using solar pumping stations to replace watergaps is a valuable improvement; thus, they should emphasize the solar pump work. They should also look into options of other mechanisms than 15-year leases.This proposal provides a good description of the project since its inception, and actions taken to restore riparian habitat. After an implementation phase of the project, which involved the acquisition of 15-year leases as well as direct actions taken to restore riparian habitat, the project in now in an operations and maintenance phase.
Despite the clear and detailed description of the project's history and of subbasin limiting factors, the proposal provides much less detail on monitoring progress toward meeting objectives. For example, the six initial objectives include unimpeded passage, reduced sedimentation, increased flows, reduced temperatures, etc. But these specific measures are not all addressed in the discussion of photopoint monitoring. Moreover, despite O&M work since 1986, the proposal gave no indication of water temperature improvement to date and no indication of increase in fish population.
The proposal also should include a more detailed assessment of what is likely to happen in 2012 when the last lease expires. Are the incentives facing landowners sufficient to ensure that riparian protection will be maintained? Will the cost of fence repair, etc. be considered affordable? How would maintaining the existing riparian improvements benefit landowners?
To assess whether objectives of the project are being met, the tasks should be directly tied to objectives in a measurable way. Objective 1, to "protect, enhance and restore" is too vague to be directly measured. Objective 2, to monitor the success of recovery efforts, is limited to stream temperature and canopy closure. What about the other factors listed as original objectives? Objective 3 could use more specifics as to how the transfer of information will take place, and what is expected for outcomes.
This work (and others) could benefit from a comparative approach (treated /untreated). It seems population viability may remain at question, but this work addresses the only current means of increasing survivals overall by increasing it in the freshwater life stage.
Comment:
This project was repeatedly denied funding for monitoring and evaluation in it's earlier years. Due to this, data for the earlier years of this project are limited. Future work should include additional M+E to provide the measures that the ISRP are looking for. The co-managers believe that due to this project, the populations are significantly stronger at this time.Comment:
Fundable to bring closure to this multi-year task. Issues on watershed assessment and monitoring may be addressed in the Council review and BPA contracting process as deliverables, including a delivery date for the watershed assessment and prescription. Despite the completion of fencing, a watershed condition assessment is required. Maintenance activities from past improvements require support, yet should form part of an overall watershed restoration plan that has evolved from a completed watershed assessment, which they suggest is in process. Detailed M&E as proposed in 199801900 (Wind River Watershed Restoration) may not be necessary, but routine monitoring (physical and biological response in relative terms such as streambank vegetative re-growth or juvenile steelhead presence/absence) should be included, at least, to confirm fish utilization and relative response. If you fence off almost an entire river, are there measurable fish and wildlife benefits? The work has likely provided fish and wildlife benefits, but some confirmation is required. These benefits were not quantified despite the monitoring of stream temperature and canopy closure since 1987. The response to the questions about 15 year leases is adequate. See comments in 21001, below, which also apply to this and other Fifteenmile habitat works. Comments by ISRP under General Issues also apply (e.g., monitoring, priorities in habitat rehabilitation).Comment:
Comment:
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: |
| $225,220 | $225,220 | $225,220 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website