FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25019
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 |
|---|---|
| 25019 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Tucannon River Roads, Cut and Fill Slope Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 25019 |
| Organization | USDA, Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Del Groat, District Fish Biologist |
| Mailing address | West 71 Main Pomeroy Washington, 99347 |
| Phone / email | 5098434639 / dgroat@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Sanchez, Umatilla Forest Fisheries Biologist |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Tucannon |
| Short description | Stablize road cut and fill slopes with erosion matting, and boulder collars reducing sediment contributions to the Tucannon River and its tributaries. Propagating, and planting native shrubs and grasses on sites. |
| Target species | Snake River Spring/ Summer/ Fall Chinook Salmon, Snake River Steelhead, Columbia River Bull Trout. All species have been listed as "Threatened" under the Endangered Species Act and are included in NMFS ESU. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.185 | -118.755 | T8N. R41E. Sec 5 This is the center of project activity. All roads would be involved in the watershed. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | 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 |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Boulder collars added to Road 47. |
| 1997 | ERFO restores flood damaged road sites on road 4712 and 4713. |
| 1998 | Erosion matting and native plantings begin. Road 4620 added to projects. |
| 1999-2001 | Cow Camp instream restoration begins. Addition of large wood and rock structures stabilizing cutbanks, creating pool habitat along with riparian plantings. Road restoration projects continue. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Lower Snaker River Comp. Plan | Supplementation Assessments | |
| 200001900 | Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Brood Program | |
| 199401806 | Implement Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid Habitats |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Locate opportunities for erosion control on Tucannon Watershed Roads | Photograph, GPS locations, and create data base. | ongoing | $1,000 | |
| Develop plan and design. | ongoing | $500 | ||
| Nepa & Consultation | ongoing | $2,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continue objective as described above | 2002 | 2005 | $5,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| $500 | $500 | $500 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reduce Erosion and Sediment to Tucannon River. | Stabilize Road cut and fill slopes, using matting and machine placed boulder collars. | ongoing | $10,000 | Yes |
| Aquire native grasses, tree, and shrub cuttings, propagate species at nursery, and transplant. | ongoing | $3,500 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continue current objective | 2002 | 2005 | $54,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| $13,500 | $13,500 | $13,500 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monitor and evalutate success of projects. | Operate ISCO sediment samplers, take random grab samples, analyze in Lab. | ongoing | $2,000 | |
| Evaluate planting mortalities. | Establish transects, photo points and keep in data base | ongoing | $500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continue current objectives | 2002 | 2005 | $10,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| $2,500 | $2,500 | $2,500 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3 to 4 personnel for $400/day, 20 days | $8,000 |
| Fringe | Leave and Benefits 25% | $1,500 |
| Supplies | matting supplies and tools | $1,000 |
| Travel | Vehicle Mileage $ 0.34/ mi | $500 |
| NEPA | Includes ESA Consultation | $2,000 |
| Subcontractor | Machine contract and Nursery | $6,500 |
| $19,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $19,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $19,500 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tucannon Model Watershed | Contracting COR, planning and consultation | $2,500 | in-kind |
| Boy Scouts | Tree planting labor | $1,000 | in-kind |
| School Timber Sale KV funding | $5,000 | cash |
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:
Jun 15, 2001
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This is a proposal to expand and continue efforts to stabilize sources of erosion associated with roads to help reduce sediment in spawning areas. Project personnel are well qualified and experienced to accomplish the work required. A monitoring program is included to detect changes in the spawning areas. The proposal should make it clear how changes caused by the project will be separated from changes unrelated to the project. There is insufficient detail in the proposal on what will be done where. Why BPA funding? USDA responsibility?
Comment:
This project is a USFS responsibility (in-lieu).Comment:
Not fundable. A response was not provided. This is a proposal to expand and continue efforts to stabilize sources of erosion associated with roads to help reduce sediment in spawning areas. Project personnel are well qualified and experienced to accomplish the work required. A monitoring program is included to detect changes in the spawning areas. The proposal should make it clear how changes caused by the project will be separated from changes unrelated to the project. There is insufficient detail in the proposal on what will be done where. Why BPA funding? USDA responsibility?Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUMay reduce sediment
Comments
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
The proposal suggests work that should be normal USFS road maintenance. If BPA were to decide to fund the proposal, it should be implemented in a single year rather than spreading over four years. At the proposed $16,000 to $20,000 annual cost, the project’s administrative costs within BPA would not be worth the effort. Alternatively, this work should be integrated into a larger habitat improvement proposal to make its implementation more efficient. The project sponsor did not respond to the ISRP’s questions during the review process and the ISRP does not recommend BPA funding of the proposal.Comment: