Return to Proposal Finder FY 1999 Proposal 199401807

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Enhance Habitat For Fall Chinook, Steelhead and Bulltrout
BPA Project Proposal Number 199401807
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Pomeroy Conservation District
Business acronym (if appropriate) PCD

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Duane G. Bartels
Mailing Address P.O. Box 468
City, State, Zip Pomeroy, WA 99347
Phone 5098431998
Fax 5098433665
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 1999
Province Lower Snake
Subbasin Tucannon
Short Description Enhance fish habitat, reduce sediment load from Pataha Creek, reduce water temperature, improve and enhance riparian vegetation and promote cooperation between landowners and agencies involved in Pataha Creek Model Watershed Plan.
Target Species Fall Chinook, Steelhead, Bulltrout

Project Location

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses:
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.7b3
Other Planning Document References

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9202602 WA Model Watershed Leads Technical lead to Implement WS Plans No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Improve instream fish habitat and quantity a. Construct log and rock vortex weirs, place woody debris, root wad reventment and incorporate root wads in bank stab. projects
. b. 6,000 tree and shrub plantings
2. Reduce water temperature a. 6,000 tree and shrub plantings
. b. Riparian fencing 20,000 ft.
. c. Riparian buffer strips 25 acres
. d. Streambank Stabilization with incorporation of fish habitat
3. Reduce erosion and sedimentation rates a. No-till seeding 7,500 acres
. b. Terrace construction 25,000 ft.
. c. Grasses Waterway 10,000 ft.
. d. sediment basins 10 new
. e. 6,000 tree and shrub plantings
4. Reduce bacteria Counts a. Off-site watering facilities 3 new sites
. b. Riparian fencing 20,000 ft.
. c. Riparian buffer strips 25 acres
5. Improve and reestablish riparian vegetation a. Riparian fencing 20,000 ft.
. b. Riparian buffer strips 25 acres
. c. 6000 tree and shrub plantings
6. Maintain perennial flow a. Riparian fencing 20,000 ft.
. b. Riparian buffer strips 25 acres
. c. 6000 tree and shrub plantings
. d. increased irrigation management
7. Remove fish migration barriers a. 5 sites from Delaney to Upper Pataha
8. Utilize cost-effective ways to treat resource problems a. Analyze all practices and projects
9. Promote Cooperation a. IDT team in cooperation with landowner
10. Improve & Maintain rangeland and forest Health a. Increased # of Management plan

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/99 12/01/99 10.0%
2 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
3 01/01/99 12/01/99 50.0%
4 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
5 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
6 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
7 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
8 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
9 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
5 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 1999 Cost
Personnel Wages for tech lead and clerical $ 29,505
Fringe Insurance, district share Soc. Sec., medicare $ 10,521
Supplies Office supplies, monitoring supplies $ 3,230
Operating Maintanence of existing demonstration projects. $ 5,000
Travel Travel to meetings, seminars $ 1,232
Subcontractor N/A $ 40,000
Other $123,512
Total Itemized Budget $213,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 project cost $213,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 1999 budget request $213,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Not applicable

Outyear Budget Totals

2000 2001 2002 2003
All Phases $223,000 $233,000 $243,000 $253,000
Total Outyear Budgets $223,000 $233,000 $243,000 $253,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Improving and maintaining habitat requires long term commitments between landowners and all agencies involved. Long term cost-share availability on all projects and practices is necessary for continued landowner involvement in the watershed program.

Section 6. References

n/a or no information

Section 7. Abstract


The Pataha Creek Watershed was designated as a “model watershed” in 1993 by the Northwest Power Planning Council and the Bonneville Power Administration. Chinook salmon have never been documented in Pataha Creek. It is too small for adults and does not presently support juveniles because of high water temperature, excessive turbidity and sediment deposition. It is considered “critical habitat” because it drains into the Tucannon River which supports both spring and fall chinook. The Pomeroy Conservation District has provided a cost-share program to encourage further use of approved conservation practices that will treat temperature and sediment problems to lessen their negative impacts to the Tucannon River fish population. Although the primary emphasis of the watershed plan is on the improvement of chinook salmon critical habitat, the involved parties realize that populations of other fish species, such as steelhead and bull trout have declined and that implementation of the plan should improve habitat quality for them. As practices are implemented, both upland and in the stream and riparian area, a monitoring and evaluation process is being used to document success or failure of the practice. Water temperature and total suspended solids is currently be analyzed and documented in the districts local soil testing lab. Future testing for fecal coliforms, ammonia and other selected elements will be done as testing programs with the local soil lab and high school is completed. Before and after photo documentation of project sites is ongoing. Quarterly reports of costs of implemented practices will be sent to funding authorities.

Reviews and Recommendations

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

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
May 13, 1998
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Technical Issue: Explain why the costs doubled although the proposal appears unchanged from FY98.

Technical Issue: Identify the watershed plan upon which project implementation is based.

Technical Issue: Identify the existing resource condition (what fish are currently in the habitat area).

Technical Issue: Resubmit the proposal for FY99 work based on FY98 funding.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
May 13, 1998
1999 2000 2001
$180,000 $223,000 $233,000

ISRP Review , ISRP 1998-1 Recommendation:
Adequate after revision
Jun 18, 1998
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
The revised proposal provides more information. The location of sediment sampling sites should be shown on a map. Since the project has a history, the proposal should present results obtained to date (pre-project temperatures, sedimentation, etc). The no-till practices may lead to more herbicide and pesticide use; they should describe to what extent they will limit herbicide and pesticide use. The proposal includes language about fecal coliform counts, but this is not the easiest or most relevant way to monitor fish habitat. The terms "clearing" and "snagging" raise a red flag; does this mean the removal of beneficial structures. The removal of fish migration barriers is not described in enough detail to ensure that they are not removing snags that are beneficial to fish. The benefits to fish and wildlife are not well explained. The methods and monitoring for this project are not well described.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 80,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 80,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 80,000
Sponsor (Pomeroy Soil & Water) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page