FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200003100

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
200003100 Narrative	Narrative
200003100 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project
Proposal ID	200003100
Organization	Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Tom Macy
Mailing address	P.O. Box 158 Ukiah, OR 97850
Phone / email	5414275367 / tommacy@ucinet.com
Manager authorizing this project	Gary A. James
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Protect and restore habitat critical to the recovery of wild salmonid populations in the North Fork John Day River Basin and promoting natural ecological function and improved water quality and quantities..
Target species	Wild Summer Steelhead Wild Spring Chinook Bull Trout Red Band Trout West Throat Cutthroat Trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Project area ranges from the mouth of the North Fork John Day River to the Headwaters.
		Headwaters of the John Day River to the north
		Headwaters of the John Day River to the east
		Headwaters of the John Day River to the south
44.82	-119.45	North Fork John Day River

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
2000	Two contracts were signed for long term riparian conservation easements.
2000	Contracted for riparian fencing of two miles of stream. and development of 5 off-stream watering sites
2000	Coordinated with multiple landowners.
2000	Held two public meetings on this project and alternative FSA and State programs.
2000	Coordinated with the NRCS to facilitate joint projects and encourage NRCS funded projects.
2000	Sent out project descriptive mailings to all private landowners in high priority project areas.
2000	Identified and prioritized project areas.
2000	Completed Quarterly BPA reports.
2000	Helped secure NRCS funding on two reaches for riparian fencing and protection.
2000	Participated in joint agency spawning ground surveys.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
8710001	Umatilla River Basin Habitat Enhancement	Reduced costs, projects shared personnel, vehicles, equipement and information transferr.
9608300	Grande Ronde Subbasin Watershed Restoration	Reduced costs, shared personnel vehicles and equipment.
7900400	Study of Wild Spring Chinook Salmon in The John day River System	This project recommends priority areas for habitat enhancement. It serves as a guideline for some of our projects and the Habitat enhancement project serves as an implementation tool.
980160	John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon Escapement and Productivity Monitoring	This project serves as a monitoring and evaluation tool to be used in association with enhancement prioritization and effectiveness.
9405400	Bull Trout Life History Project	Helps us to identify priority areas and projects that may benefit Bull trout.
8402100	Protect and Enhance Anadrmous Fish Habitat in the John Day Subbasin	This project basically works complementary to the CTUIR North Fork Project, concentrating their efforts in other parts of the drainage. We coordinate on a regular basis to assure that the projects are consistent with and support each other.
9306600	Northeast Oregon Screening and Fish Passage Project	We coordinate with this project when we identify potential screening and passage opportunities, and we have projects that are in the immediate vicinity of their operations.
8201000	Restore and Enhance Salmon in the Umatilla Basin	As part of this study they identified, evaluated , prioritized and recommended site specific solutions to major problems impacting the salmon resource.
9402600	Pacific Lamprey Population Studies	Finding will be used to help prioritize habitat rehabilitation projects.
9801800	John Day Watershed Restoration Project (Warm Springs Tribe)	This project uses conservation easements, riparian fencing, instream work and land acquisition as methods to improve habitat. This project is complimentary to this North Fork CTUIR project and is concentrated in another part of the John Day Subbasin
9703400	Monitor Fine Sediment and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers	This project helps to identify priority work defined by sediment monitoring.
9303800	North Fork John Day Fish Habitat Enhancement	This project is the Forest Service (public lands) compliment to the CTUIR project. We coordinate sampling, monitoring and project development.
82002900	John Day River Habitat Improvement	Work completed on this project is an adjacent extension of work being done on this CTUIR project.
8339400	Clear /Granite Creeks Habitat Improvement	This project improved spawning in a North Fork tributary.
833950	NorthFork John Day Habitat Improvement	This project was completed in the North Fork John Day on National Forest lands and compliments the CTUIR project.
8400800	North Fork John Day Habitat Improvement	This project was complimentary to the CTUIR project.
930700	Grande Ronde, Imnaha, and John Day Telemetry Tracking	Guides rehabilitation priorities by identifying the role of temperature in spring Chinook distribution.
9605300	North Fork John Day Dredge-Tailings Restoration	Similar work results working on dredge tailings in the NF John Day Subbasin.
980170	Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams on Lower North Fork John Day	Compliments the CTUIR project by doing passage and habitat improvement in another part of the drainage.
9106900	Fish Habitat Project Field Reviews and Evaluations	Provided guidance on the types of habitat enhancement that are most effective.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Identify habitat impacts, attain solutions to detrimental use practices and promote habitat enhancement measures.	a. Utilize existing information to identify site specific habitat impacts	ongoing	$2,204
	b. Coordinate with landowners and local agencies to determine remedial measures and obtain support for project efforts.	ongoing	$13,225
	c. Coordinate with entities or programs having funding opportunities to facilitate potential joint or cost shared projects.	ongoing	$13,225
	d. Conduct local outreach efforts public meetings, tours and presentations to obtain input, address landowner concerns and promote habitat restoration and protection.	ongoing	$8,817
	e. Assist North Fork Watershed Council in development of a North Fork Watershed Assessment.	ongoing	$4,408
	f. Identify head cut problems, instream passage barriers, instream improvements and bank stabilization challenges.	ongoing	$2,204

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Identify habitat impacts, attain solutions to detrimental use practices and promote habitat enhancement measures.	2003	2006	$204,417

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$46,728	$49,532	$52,503	$55,654

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
2. Implement passive, natural recovery approaches in combination with intensive, native revegitation efforts to achieve anadromous fish habitat recovery	a. coordinate with local, state and federal resource entities and prepare grant proposals.	ongoing	$15,753
	b. Develop and secure riparian easements with private landowners.	ongoing	$17,722
	c. Persue grazing leases where they are cost effective.	ongoing	$0
	d. Conduct cultural and archeological surveys in proposed project areas to receive clearances to implement ground-disterbing activities.	ongoing	$5,907	Yes
	e. Complete project design and layout.	ongoing	$9,845
	f. Solicit bids and award subcontracts for fence construction, native tree and shrub plantings, bank stabilization, passage work, instream work and noxious weed control.	ongoing	$19,691
	g. Construct fencing, off stream water developments, bank stabilization, and instream structures. Remediate head-cuts and passage barriers.	ongoing	$59,074	Yes
	h. Seed native grasses and plant indigenous trees and shrubs in project areas.	ongoing	$59,074
	i. Treat noxious weeds in project areas to decrease competition with native vegetation.	ongoing	$9,845	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
2. Implement passive, natural recovery approaches in combination with intensive native revegetation effort to achieve anadrmous fish habitat recovery.	2003	2006	$848,515

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$202,818	$208,902	$215,170	$221,625

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
3. Maintenance of fencing, water deveopments, head-cut remediation, and instream structures.	a. Conduct post-construction final reviews to ensure that sub-contracted services conform with contract specifications.	ongoing	$1,469
	b. Maintain fences, water developments, bank stabilization work, instream structures and riparian plantings where required by contracts.	ongoing	$14,695
	c. Develop funding proposals and write quarterly reports and annual progress reports.	ongoing	$4,408
	d. Conduct weed control within all project areas		$8,817	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
3. Maintenance of fencing, water developments, head-cut remediation and instream structures.	2003	2006	$133,217

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$31,152	$33,021	$34,012	$35,032

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
4. Collect baseline data and conduct pre and post project monitoring to identify habitat limiting factors and quantify effects of habitat enhancement work	a. Conduct habitat surveys in proposed habitat enhancement areas.	ongoing	$5,878
	b. Conduct biological inventories to determine pre and post-project utilization by anadromous fish within enhanced reaches.	ongoing	$3,526
	c. Establish photo points and stream channel transects to measure changes in channel morphology and vegetative recovery.	ongoing	$2,351
	d. Collect maximum, average and minimum daily stream temperatures during summer months.	ongoing	$11,756

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
4. Collect baseline data and conduct pre and post-project monitoring to identify habitat limiting factors and quantify effects of habitat enhancement work.	2003	2006	$117,195

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$25,627	$27,933	$30,447	$33,188

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.29	$94,394
Fringe	.30	$28,318
Supplies		$53,505
Travel		$11,015
Indirect	34%	$63,662
Subcontractor		$43,000
		$293,894

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$293,894
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$293,894
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$259,500
% change from forecast	13.3%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Once underway we realized that in this more remote location we had significantly higher implementation costs. We also realized that personnel would be higher than expected. Other reasons follow in "Reason for change in scope".

Reason for change in scope

While working in the field we have identified some need for instream work within project areas, these included: 1) Head cuts in various locations in the open meadows, 2) Banks that need to be stabilized to protect investments, 3) We neglected to include off stream water developments in our first budget, 4) Camas Creek proper will need substantial planning and instream bioingineering from a hydrologist due to bedload movement and 5) there are some large meadow areas that will require more planning and implementation costs than expected. We are also presenting funding opportunities provided by the NRCS and OWEB. While this is taking more time, some landowners are utilizing these programs by themselves or in conjunction with the BPA funding. This means that there is much more work being done in this area utilizing other funding sources.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
CTUIR	Partial Parsonnel Salaries	$5,000	in-kind
USFS	Office Services and Personnel	$12,000	cash
BIA	Vehicle Lease and Insurance	$1,740	cash
BIA	Training and Per Diem	$600	cash
NRCS	Direct Project Cost Share	$150,000	cash

Other budget explanation

Cost shares are annual figures. NRCS may go much higher as their program is very attractive and makes joint projects easier for landowners.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This proposal is to protect and enhance habitat for natural production of wild spring Chinook and summer steelhead in the upper north fork of the John Day River Basin. The project will implement re-vegetation and passive recovery processes on private and public lands. Work that is proposed in this project appears justified and is in concert with other work and approaches used in the basin. There is good coordination with other projects and across different ownership interests. The description of the problem and the subbasin context is complete. The proposal does a good job of laying out the approach and showing linkages to regional planning documents and other within-basin projects. Description of Objectives and tasks is thorough, however details of specific methods are absent. Similarly, information on project personnel is minimal.

More specific detail on the following should be provided:

Activities to be undertaken under this project
How does this project relate to 199801600 (monitor the productivity of spring chinook?) How specifically will 199801600 monitor the effectiveness of projects undertaken here?).
Methods to be used: what are methods of habitat inventory, fish assessment?
Brief CVs (1 page) of project personnel

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. This proposal is to protect and enhance habitat for natural production of wild spring Chinook and summer steelhead in the upper north fork of the John Day River Basin. The project will implement re-vegetation and passive recovery processes on private and public lands. Work that is proposed in this project appears justified and is in concert with other work and approaches used in the basin. There is good coordination with other projects and across different ownership interests. The description of the problem and the subbasin context is complete. The proposal does a good job of laying out the approach and showing linkages to regional planning documents and other within-basin projects. Description of objectives and tasks is thorough and the response provided adequate detail on activities, methods and relationship to other projects.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project is to protect & enhance habitat for natural production of wild spring chinook & summer steelhead in the Upper North fork of the John Day River Basin -- Short-term (3-5 years) project effects include native plant community recovery, increased bank stream stability & increased stream channel shading; long-term (25-100 years) project effects include changes in hydrological features, vegetation succession, channel narrowing, cooler stream temperatures, reduced sediment input, increased wood recruitment, greater riparian & in-stream habitat diversity -- resulting increased juvenile & adult freshwater survival and thus greater offspring out-migration.

Comments
Project will implement re-vegetation & passive recovery processes on private & public lands. Good coordination with other projects and across different ownership interests.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank A (for watershed assessment) and B for balance

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

The watershed assessment portion of this project is a very small component ($10,000) and it is not providing assessment work for the entire North Fork John Day River. The assessment is still being developed with the strategy to do just a couple of watersheds that make up a small component of the entire John Day Basin because of limited funds and personnel to do the work. ODFW has provided direction to the Umatilla Tribe on where they should focus their efforts. In fact, ODFW would be focused there also except for limited personnel and the distances they would have to travel to do the work.

The tribe is having some difficulty getting the project rolling because they have new personnel and this is a new area for their focus. They are also trying to figure out how to coordinate their program with the USDA CREP program in this area. They have made good faith efforts to do this. It is too soon to know whether they will be able to have a successful long-term program in the area but they are focused in the right locations and coordinating with other organizations such as watershed councils, USDA and others.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Slightly over spending cap by 4K. Indirect increases. Implementation from previous year, rescheduling tasks from previous year to 04.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

In FY 04 CTUIR is seeking an increase of $78,161 to cover a combination of unfunded increases of Indirect rates in previous years and projects identified in the previous year that were not implemented. Unfunded 2002 Indirect Rate Increase @ 37.2% = $3,693. Unfunded 2003 Indirect Rate Increase @ 39.64% = $7,517. Funding for projects not implemented in previous year $66,951.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$244,544	$244,544	$244,544

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website