FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199506001
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 |
|---|---|
| 199506001 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199506001 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Enhance Wildlife Habitat in Squaw Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 199506001 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Agency DNR Wildlife Program (CTUIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Eric J. Quaempts |
| Mailing address | PO Box 638 Pendleton, OR 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5419662389 / ericquaempts@ctuir.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Carl Scheeler, Wildlife Program Manager |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description | Protect and enhance watershed resources to provide benefits for eight HEP Target Species and anadromous and resident salmonids. |
| Target species | Western meadowlark, blue grouse, mule deer, downy woodpecker, black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, mink, great blue heron, |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.63 | -118.41 | Located in Umatilla County, Oregon, approximately 18 miles east Pendleton. Squaw Creek flows into the Umatilla River at approximately River Mile 78. |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1994 | Completed ten miles of fish habitat and population surveys in Squaw Creek. Established baseline data, characterized existing riparian and fish habitat conditions and obtained estimate of salmonid populations (37,611 salmonids). |
| 1995 | The Squaw Creek Watershed Project was identified and prioritized by the CTUIR as a mitigation project providing dual benefits for fish and wildlife. |
| 1997 | Approximately 5,536 acres of land in the Squaw Creek subbasin purchased to form the nucleus of the Squaw Creek Watershed Project. Additionally, 1,005 acres of BIA-administered Trust land incorporated into the project. |
| 1998 | An additional 320 acres of fee lands, consisting of forested, grassland, and riparian cover types, purchased for incorporation into project. |
| 1998 | Two BIA-administered grazing allotments, totalling approximately 20,000 acres and 1,056 Animal Unit Months purchased and rested from use. Allotment rest provides an estimated 588 Habitat Units of protection credit. |
| 1998 | Management plan inititiated to formulate inter-agency HEP-team, develop concurrence on eight HEP Target Species for project, and initiate stakeholder involvement. The management plan outline is developed and description of existing conditions intitiated. |
| 1998 | Habitat Evalutation Procedures surveys are intitiated. 18,000 linear feet of transect and 32 tenth-acre plots completed in the riparian cover type, and 3.350 m of transect and 110 microplots completed in the grassland cover type. |
| 1999 | In HEP field surveys, 27,200 linear m of transect and 272 microplots completed in grassland cover type. 20,300 linear feet of transect, 406 microplots, and 101 macroplots completed in forested cover types. All HEP field surveys complete. |
| 1999 | 20 ecological survey plots completed in grassland and forested cover types. The surveys identify plant associations, ecological status (sere), aid in identification of processes effecting changes in plant communities, and provide baseline monitoring. |
| 1999 | An additional 80 acres of lands providing forested and grassland cover types purchased and incoporated into the project. |
| 1999 | Appraisals completed for 612 acres of corporate forest lands in the Squaw Creek Subbasin headwaters. Fair market land value is obtained to initiate negotiations for acquisition of the property. |
| 1999 | 16.3 miles of road administratively closed to protect fish and wildlife habitats, and reduce disturbance to mule deer, great blue heron, other wildlife, and spawning summer steelhead. |
| 1999 | Two BIA-administered grazing allotments, totalling approximately 20,000 acres and 1,056 Animal Unit Months purchased and rested from use. Allotment rest provides an estimated 588 Habitat Units of protection credit. |
| 2000 | An additional 14 ecological reconnaissance plots completed in forest cover type to identify plant associations, ecological status (sere), aid in identification of processes effecting changes in plant communities, and provide baseline monitoring. |
| 2000 | Data summaries of HEP and ecological reconnaissance survey data completed. Report of ecological conditions completed by USDA Forest Service Region 6 Ecologist for ecological characterization of existing conditions. |
| 2001 | Two BIA-administered grazing allotments, totalling approximately 20,000 acres and 1,056 Animal Unit Months purchased and rested from use. Allotment rest provides an estimated 588 Habitat Units of protection credit. |
| 2001 | HEP Report and Management plan scheduled for completion. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8710001 | Umatilla Basin Habitat Enhancement | Project incorporates Squaw Creek Watersjed due to its critical contribution of summer steelhead spawning/rearing habitat to the Umatilla Basin. Opportunities exist to share personnel, vehicles, and equipment to minimize project expense. |
| 9000501 | Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation. | Fish habitat monitoring and evaluation surveys for the Squaw Creek Watershed will be conducted under this project, and will help quantify benefits of activities accomplished under this proposal. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Plan, design, and coordinate enhancements that will contribute towards the provision of 5,554 enhancement credits. | a. Develop monitoring designs, project layout, monitoring designs for enhancements, and operations and maintenance. | 5 | $18,000 | |
| b. Environmental compliance and cooordination (NEPA/SEPA, ESA, Cultural Resources, Interagency and private organization coordination). | 5 | $7,962 | ||
| Indirect (.34) | $8,827 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.a. Develop monitoring designs, project layout, monitoring designs for enhancements, and operations and maintenance. | 2003 | 2006 | $77,700 |
| 1.b. Environmental compliance and cooordination (NEPA/SEPA, ESA, Cultural Resources, Interagency and private organization coordination). | 2003 | 2006 | $33,440 |
| 2. Update 5 year, site specific management plan. Review current plan's effectiveness, update existing condtion characterizations, conduct public scoping, develop and publish 5-year action plan w/goals, objectives, desired future conditions, and budget. | 2006 | 2006 | $12,700 |
| Indirect (.34) | 2003 | 2006 | $42,106 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $36,529 | $36,528 | $36,528 | $56,360 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement instream/riparian enhancements to contribute towards provision of 5,554 enhancement credits. | a. Continue placement of large wood debris to attain an average of 60 pieces/mile in Reaches 3-5 of Squaw Creek. | 2 | $15,250 | Yes |
| b. Plant o native conifer/harwood/shrubs in riparian/instream enhancement sites. | 3 | $4,375 | ||
| c. Construct 3 miles of range allotment boundary fence. | 1 | $21,000 | Yes | |
| d. Development/coordination/inspection of subcontracts. | 1 | $12,000 | ||
| Indirect (.34) | $4,080 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.a. Continue placement of large wood debris to attain an average of 60 pieces/mile in Reaches 3-5 of Squaw Creek. | 2003 | 2003 | $8,000 |
| 1.b. Plant o native conifer/harwood/shrubs in riparian/instream enhancement sites. | 2004 | 2006 | $14,021 |
| 1.c. Construct 3 miles of range allotment boundary fence. | 2003 | 2004 | $43,050 |
| 1.d. Development/coordination/inspection of subcontracts. | 2003 | 2006 | $50,400 |
| 2. Collect/propagate/acquire native seed for grassland and riparian enhancements. | 2003 | 2006 | $43,200 |
| 3. Develop spring sources to improve distribution of livestock (Livestock are a potential management option for early season grazing ro reduce annual grass coverage.) | 2003 | 2005 | $15,241 |
| Indirect (.34) | 2003 | 2006 | $23,025 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $59,134 | $61,117 | $67,477 | $71,692 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Continue operations and maintenance to provide 3,832 Habitat Units of protection credit. | a. Purchase grazing leases for two BIA-administered grazing allotments (20,000 acres and 1,056 AUMS). | 5 | $13,860 | |
| b. Maintain 15 miles of allotment fencing. | 5 | $13,711 | ||
| c. Maintain spring developments. | 5 | $1,500 | ||
| d. Develop subcontract for noxious weed control. | 5 | $255 | ||
| e. Implement subcontract for noxious weed control. | 5 | $3,675 | Yes | |
| f. Coordinate/inspect implementation of noxious weed subcontract. | 5 | $2,919 | ||
| g. Implement and provide oversight of Access and Travel Management regulations. | 5 | $14,974 | ||
| h. Subcontract services for fire management and protection. | 5 | $10,000 | ||
| i. Coordinate with BPA, including development and submission of annual Statement of Work and Budget, quarterly reports, annual report, purchasing, financial reporting, and other coordination as needed. | 5 | $28,860 | ||
| INDIRECT (.34) | $24,554 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Continue operations and maintenance to provide 3,832 Habitat Units of protection credit. (Tasks 1a. - 1h. above). | 2003 | 2006 | $511,401 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $117,210 | $126,025 | $129,224 | $138,943 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor effectiveness of protection and enhancement activities and access and travel management plan. | a. Establish photo points for continuing instream/riparian enhancements. | 2 | $5,552 | |
| b. Repeat photography of enhancement sites. | 5 | $2,955 | ||
| c. Process, label, and organize photography. | 5 | $1,178 | ||
| d. Develop ARCView theme/map of photopoints, riparian/instream enhancement sites. | 2 | $2,603 | ||
| INDIRECT (.34) | $4,178 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.a. Establish photo points for continuing instream/riparian enhancements. | 2003 | 2003 | $5,830 |
| 1.b. Repeat photography of enhancement sites. | 2003 | 2006 | $13,372 |
| 1.c. Process, label, and organize photography. | 2003 | 2006 | $5,332 |
| 1.d. Develop ARCView theme/map of photopoints, riparian/instream enhancement sites. | 2003 | 2003 | $1,302 |
| 1.e. Repeat riparian HEP transects and photography. | 2004 | 2005 | $15,500 |
| 1.f. Develop subcontract for repeat of ecological reconnaissance surveys. | 2005 | 2005 | $295 |
| 1.g. Implement subcontract for repeat of ecological surveys/photography and results report. | 2005 | 2005 | $9,950 |
| Indirect (.34) | $65,735 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $15,372 | $16,491 | $27,141 | $6,731 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.5 | $70,772 |
| Fringe | $21,232 | |
| Supplies | $17,816 | |
| Travel | $4,736 | |
| Indirect | $53,927 | |
| Capital | Grazing Leases | $13,860 |
| NEPA | Included in planning/design phase. | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Unidentified Heavy Equipment Operator | $15,250 |
| Subcontractor | Unidentified fence contractor. | $21,000 |
| Subcontractor | Umatilla County Weed Control Program | $3,675 |
| $222,268 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $222,268 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $222,268 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $226,867 |
| % change from forecast | -2.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Difference represents refinement of previous estimate.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection Agency | Regional Geographic Initiative (RGI) for large wood placement in stream channel. Project is a continuation, and is implemented in conjunction with RGI large wood project in adjacent Buckaroo Creek Subbasin. | $6,800 | 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; questions remain, and monitoring and evaluation is weak.
The proposal is well written. It does not, however, include any data for fish abundance. They state that 25 percent of Umatilla spawning occurs in Squaw Creek so they must have some data, data that should be included in the proposal to show any trend in abundance. This protects and enhances 50 miles of stream habitat and includes upland habitat. Benefits of riparian protection were clear from the site visits. Wildlife was frequently visible in healthy riparian areas of the Umatilla. It was not clear that the planned works would address the problem of de-watering, listed as a limiting factor. Due to the reduction in salmon carcasses, has carcass replacement been considered (nutrient or carcass additions)? The list of desired conditions and goals, and current status was helpful and should guide the work effectively. Tasks and Methods are good. The photo-point methods of evaluation may be sufficient, although some limited fish assessment or routine monitoring is desirable (perhaps done under the monitoring and evaluation initiative). It is unclear why the purchase of 20,000 BIA lands reappears each year—is this an annual cost for mortgage, annual purchase of rights, or something else? Clarify.
Respond with trend data, justification based on how this work addresses de-watering, information on nutrient limitations, clarification of the land purchase costs, and clear indication of past achievements and how success will be measured.
Comment:
Squaw Creek has been identified as the most important system in the Umatilla Subbasin for summer steelhead.Comment:
Fundable. This protects and enhances 50 miles of stream habitat and includes upland habitat. Benefits of riparian protection were clear from the site visits. Wildlife was frequently visible in healthy riparian areas of the Umatilla. The list of desired conditions and goals, and current status was helpful and should guide the work effectively. The response addressed the ISRP's main concerns, but some issues are outstanding. Would passive restoration be adequate in this protected area? Routine monitoring should be done more frequently; as it stands, monitoring has been done too infrequently (last done in 1994, and not planned until sometime in this next 3-yr cycle).Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? N/A
Biop? no
Comment:
Comment:
McNary Dam has been significantly mitigated for wildlife; BPA intends to fund ongoing O&M and M&E for habitat that has already been treated under this project. Additional habitat enhancement for wildlife is not needed at this time; BPA does not plan to fund the Planning and Design Phase or the Construction/Implementation Phase of this project in FY02.Comment:
Accruals low.Comment:
REVIEW:
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: |
| $150,000 | $175,000 | $175,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website