FY 2000 proposal 20004
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | White Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 20004 |
| Organization | White Salmon River Watershed Management Committee c/o Underwood Conservation District (UCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Steve Stampfli |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 96 White Salmon WA 98672 |
| Phone / email | 5094931936 / stevestampfli@gorge.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Little White Salmon |
| Short description | A comprehensive, five-year plan aimed to improve fish habitat, riparian and upslope watershed conditions, and land stewardship through direct restorative actions, cooperative work with stakeholders, and promoting education and citizen involvement. |
| Target species | Spring chinook, tule fall chinook, coho salmon, sea run cutthroat, winter and summer steelhead, resident rainbow and cutthroat trout, and bull trout. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1998 |
White Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Project -- Phase II Implementation completion |
| 1998 |
Upper White Salmon River Watershed Assessment (USFS) completion |
| 1997 |
White Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Project -- Phase I (DOE funded) Implementation completion. |
| 1997 |
Panakanic (Upper RSC) Watershed Analysis (DNR) completion |
| 1997 |
Cave/Bear Watershed Analysis (USFS) completion |
| 1996 |
Trout Lake Creek Watershed Analyis (USFS) completion |
| 1994 |
White Salmon River Watershed Land- Use Evaluaton Report completion |
| 1994 |
White Salmon River Watershed Water Quality Investigation Report completion |
| 1994 |
White Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Plan completion |
| 1994 |
White Salmon River Watershed Assessment Project (DOE funded) completion |
| 1993 |
Formation of watershed council (WMC) in White Salmon River watershed |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$54,076 |
| Fringe |
=26% of total personnel costs |
$19,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$13,117 |
| Operating |
phone, supplies, mailing, rent |
$3,367 |
| NEPA |
included in personnel costs |
$0 |
| Travel |
|
$2,467 |
| Indirect |
|
$7,000 |
| Subcontractor |
heavy equipment contract |
$106,500 |
| $205,527 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $205,527 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $205,527 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| UCD |
labor, lab fees, materials |
$64,901 |
unknown |
| NRCS |
labor |
$2,100 |
unknown |
| USFS |
labor, map product supplies |
$3,016 |
unknown |
| Timber Co.'s |
labor, fence and gate mat'ls |
$22,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: NA
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. Location and priority of restoration activities are not adequately justified.
Comments:
The tasks were well laid out, but why these tasks in these locations at this time? They failed to make clear why the specific restoration projects were chosen (10 miles of decommissioned roads, 5 miles of riparian fencing, riparian forest thinning, etc.) as top priority items or what species would benefit from them. For example, under objective 2, why these 40 miles of stream? How were they chosen? Will all be well within the White Salmon River Watershed when these 40 miles are restored? The need for the actions in Objective 3 was not clear. Reducing roads can be good, but why these roads? Thinning of riparian vegetation was not well justified. How were the results of previous watershed assessments used in the project identification process? The priority of activities was not justified in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife. There was little evidence for linkage of this proposed project with others either new or ongoing. It was difficult to assess what the real product was going to be at the end and what benefit that product might have. After doing Objectives 2 & 3, how will success be evaluated? There was a great deal of rhetoric and use of buzzwords with little real substance. As a result, true goals were difficult to visualize. Strengths of the proposal include that the watershed advisory committee participation was great, as is the expanded public involvement and environmental education. This project would seem to have good cost-sharing.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Until Condit Dam is removed or passage is provided, the need for an anadromous watershed assessment in this system is not a priority. Once a settlement is reached, then reconsideration of this project would be appropriate.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The proposal needs to be tighter, focusing specifically on restoration and assessment. Unclear how all parts of proposal fit together. Is assessment completed, or are projects selected prior to assessment?
Weak link between watershed assessment, coordination/education, and restoration activities.
Unclear how coordination/meetings will result in on-the-ground improvements for salmon.
High levels of funding for federal employees.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];