FY 2000 proposal 199404200
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Trout Creek Habitat Restoration Project Multi Year Funding Proposal |
| Proposal ID | 199404200 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ray Hartlerode and Tom Nelson |
| Mailing address | 3450 W 10th St. The Dalles, OR 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5412968026 / rayh@gorge.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Deschutes |
| Short description | Operation and Maintenance of instream and riparian habitat improvement; Monitoring and Evaluation of Basin SSt smolt production and habitat recovery; coordination for basin long range plan; resulting in increased native salmonid and wildlife production. |
| Target species | Summer Steelhead, Redband Trout, Pacific Lamprey |
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 |
To date we have built and maintained 132 miles of fence |
| 1998 |
conducted SSt smolt monitoring |
| 1998 |
To date we have built and maintained 236 Rock weirs. |
| 1998 |
To date we have built and maintained 189 log weirs. |
| 1998 |
To date we have placed and maintian 3.7 miles of Juniper riprap. |
| 1998 |
To date we have placed 3397 habitat boulders. |
| 1998 |
To date we have placed 498 pieces of LWD. |
| 1998 |
Facilitated COE to conduct an initial assessment to removal of 1964 berms in the basin. |
| 1998 |
Facilitated and completed basin habitat survey. |
| 1998 |
Developed and maintain 6 off chhannel water developments |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9304000 |
Fifteenmile Cr.habitat restoration |
Share equipment and manpower |
|
|
|
| 9306600 |
Oregon Screens |
|
| 9303000 |
Buckhollow watershed restoration |
|
| 9405420 |
Bull Trout studies |
|
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 |
The next three amounts include M&E, Long Rang planning and Projct coodination |
$31,891 |
| Fringe |
OPE |
$12,437 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,250 |
| Operating |
This includes personnel OPE and supplies associated with O&M |
$184,805 |
| Capital |
Replacement of 2 14 year old ATVs that currently require extensive maintenance, and 5 Solar pumps. |
$22,250 |
| Indirect |
@35.5% |
$81,786 |
| Subcontractor |
Oregon State Police 0.25 FTE |
$21,850 |
| Subcontractor |
Ore. Water Resources Tech (6mo) |
$24,428 |
| $380,697 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $380,697 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $380,697 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Conservation Resource Program |
Resting of erodable soils in the basin |
$153,000 |
unknown |
| NRCS |
EQUIP Land conservation practices |
$100,000 |
unknown |
| USFS |
new culverts and road obliteration |
$320,000 |
unknown |
| Trout Creek Watershed council |
Stream restoration |
$150,000 |
unknown |
| Corps of Engineers |
Stream restoration and berm removal |
$300,000 |
unknown |
| GWEB |
Stream restoration |
$152,000 |
unknown |
| NRCS |
Engineering and Farm plans |
$75,000 |
unknown |
| ODFW |
NMFS fish screening and passage |
$150,000 |
unknown |
| Landowners |
in kind services |
$54,000 |
unknown |
| Jefferson County |
Bridge and stream bank repair |
$75,000 |
unknown |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund (high priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund (high priority). OK for a multi-year review cycle; review again in FY2003 to verify demonstrated benefits to fish and wildlife.
Comments:
This is a well-defined and needed project. This proposal is especially good because they clearly describe that habitat assessments preceded implementation of restoration actions. The linkages with other projects is quite clear. The continuation of the planning process was well explained and effective. The objectives were clearly explained, and they fit within the obvious framework of the study based on past accomplishments. The past accomplishments were well explained and potentially substantial although there was not enough monitoring of past activities to make a convincing case that they had significantly improved conditions in Trout Creek. The proposal could better describe results to date such as pool area added, changes in riparian growth. The level of budgetary detail was excellent, but the budget seems very high for the work scheduled. The abstract is too long. Overall, this is an example of a well-written habitat restoration proposal.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Coordination improved between this project and SWCD project (98028) but more improvement needed. #6 Needs O & M, and commitments in place from landowners. #8-Ambiguous about number and location of smolt trapping. #12-No demonstration in proposal.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The proposal was not well organized or consistent. Objectives listed in Section 4 "objectives and tasks" table should match the objectives listed under "objectives schedules and costs" and Section 8e.Project does not appear to be supported by a watershed assessment.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
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: |
| $383,662 |
$383,662 |
$383,662 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website