Return to Proposal Finder FY 1999 Proposal 199404200

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 Trout Creek Habitat Restoration Project
BPA Project Proposal Number 199404200
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Business acronym (if appropriate) ODFW
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Ray Hartlerode
Mailing Address 3430 W 10th St.
City, State, Zip The Dalles, OR 97058
Phone 5412968026
Fax 5412967889
E-mail rayh@gorge.net
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 1999
Province Lower Mid-Columbia
Subbasin Deschutes
 
Short Description Operation and Maintenance of instream and riparian habitat condition. Proactive education, demonstration and implementation of good management practices in the entire Trout Creek basin. Resulting in increased native salmonid and wildlife production.
Target Species


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: 7.1, 7.1D, 7.1D.1, 7.1D.2, 7.6, 7.6A, 7.6A.2, 7.6B.1, 7.6B.2, 7.6B.3, 7.6B.6, 7.7, 7.10.K.1 AND FROM SCIENTIFIC REVIEW: 2,21,22,28,29
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: Although there has not yet been a final decision regarding the petition to list Mid Columbia River ESU Steelhead. This project would help address "Biological Option" determinations related to habitat and natural production of winter steelhead .
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
9306600 N.E. Oregon Screens - Trout Creek Fish passage - push-up dam removal Shares manpower, equipment, and facilities No
9303000 Buckhollow Watershed Restoration Deschutes basin improvement No
9405420 Bull Trout studies in Central and N.E. Oregon Stock Status and Distribution No
9304000 Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration project Share equipment and manpower No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Maintain and inspect exisiting riparian corridor structures. In order to decrease sediment and temperature which were identified as limiting factors in this basin. a. Annually inspect all riparian fencing. Depending on livestock, wildlife, weather, and other factors inspect riparian areas with heavy lisestock use at least one a week. Repair damage to fence as soon as feasible.
2. Maintain and inspect exisiting instream and bank stabilization structures. In order to decrease sediment which is identified as a limiting factor. a. Anually inspect all instream and bank stabilization structures. Repair structures as soon as feasible.
3. Monitor stream temperatures and stream flows. Stream temperature is a limiting factor in this basin. a. Attempt to document stream temperature changes attributable to riparian and instream channel recovery. Subcontract the documentation of stream flows through the low flow period through Water Resources
4. Utilize existing manpower to attempt leveraging existing BPA funds with other funds to accomplish additional basin wide goals. a. Work with Private landowners, NGO's and the Trout Creek Watershed Council to develop projects and to locate additional funding sources.
5. Establish an enhanced law enforcement presence to deter and reduce poaching of adults and smolts during spring migration . Subcontract to OSP to enhance trooper presence in the basin during vulnerable periods for adult smolting and junenile steelhead.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/99 12/01/99 65.0%
2 01/01/99 12/01/99 6.0%
3 05/01/99 11/01/99 12.0%
4 01/01/99 12/01/99 5.0%
5 03/01/99 08/01/99 12.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 1999 Cost
Personnel $117,134
Fringe Other personel expenses $ 45,682
Supplies Shop rent, vehicle leases and mileage, fencing supplies, equipment repair $ 49,775
Capital Stream gauge on Trout Creek to be installed by Water Resources $ 16,400
Travel training and per diem $ 1,570
Indirect Overhead @ 22.9% $ 49,043
Subcontractor Oregon Water Resources; Oregon State Police $ 38,750
Other $ 17,446
Other $ 17,446
Total Itemized Budget $353,246


Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 project cost $353,246
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 1999 budget request $353,246
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 $333,900 $339,934 $345,170 $350,680
Total Outyear Budgets $333,900 $339,934 $345,170 $350,680
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: none


Section 6. References

n/a or no information


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract

A This project is an operating "on the ground" project that has accomplished instream and riparian habitat improvement. Livestock riparian exclosures on over 70 miles stream has benefited stream bank integrity and has contributed to increased riparian vegetation density, health, and vigor. Installation of several thousand instream structures within the Trout Creek basin has also served to decrease actively eroding streambanks and has contributed to increasing the instream habitat complexity. Both of these restoration components have served to address several of the limiting factors that are present in this system, but primarily high summer water temperatures and large amounts of fine sediment. B With the funding requested for fiscal 1999 the project goals are to maintain and continue the ongoing riparian and instream habitat improvement to the Trout Creek watershed ultimately resulting in increased numbers of returning adult steelhead to the Trout Creek Basin. Utilizing the watershed approach achieving this goal will also benefit native resident redband trout and wildlife species that are dependent on riparian areas. This will be accomplished by: 1)continuing to maintain and repair the existing structures and fencing. 2) working with the interested parties in the basin to leverage BPA funds with other granting sources to accomplish additional watershed wide habitat enhancement projects. 3) An increased effort to monitor and regulate water usage in diversions and to monitor stream flows will be conducted by Water Resources, and 4) An enhanced presence of State Police to assist in the reduction of poaching on adult and juvenile steelhead. C In the September 10, 1996 Return to the River document the hypothesis that, “Human alteration to the salmonid bearing ecosystem has contributed to the decline in salmon and steelhead.” Was corroborated by, "Thoroughly established, generally accepted, good peer-reviewed empirical evidence". This project addresses that hypothesis. This project has sought to alleviate the human alterations, and addresses habitat restoration on a basin wide approach utilizing the results obtained from 1983 basin survey to guide efforts so that the greatest benefit will be realized. In the 1996 “Return to the River” the approach of Trout Creek project by attempting to restore habitat on a logically thought out, economically justifiable, basin wide scale is also regarded as, "Thoroughly established, generally accepted, good peer-reviewed empirical evidence". Salmonid populations in this basin are naturally reproducing and hatchery stocking does not occur. In section 7.1 in the 1994 CBFWP the policy states, "To conserve, manage and rebuild the basin's remaining wild and naturally spawning populations, a policy giving such populations explicit priority is needed." This project addresses intent of this policy through basin wide habitat restoration. Additionally, restoration efforts of this project hope to attain what is desired in section 7.6 of the CBFWP which states that, ‘ restoring degraded habitat in areas where there are naturally reproducing salmonid populations it is necessary to increase the amount of fish surviving to reach smolt size.” Additional sections of the 1994 CBFWP plan that are being addressed by this project include: 7.7 cooperating with private landowners, and 7.8 Initiating actions where water quality standards are not met. Since this project is closely tied to the fish passage project section 7.10K.1 continued funding of fish screening and passage into historic habitat also applies. Also by restoring the riparian and instream habitat this project is also benefiting numerous wildlife species. It is believed that the riparian /stream side ecosystem is the single most productive type of wildlife habitat, benefiting the greatest number of species (Kauffman and Krueger, 1984) D The approach to this project is based on the sound principal that if we can remove and or reduce some of the anthropogenetic factors to habitat degradation the habitat condition will improve and, consequently, so will fish populations. The two methods that have been largely incorporated are installation of riparian cattle exclosure fencing, and installation of various instream structures. The purpose of these fencing exclosures includes; bank stabilization, reduced sediment input, increased habitat complexity, increased vegetation, shading, lower water temperatures, stabilizing head cuts, and increasing water storage capacity in meadows. The instream structures were installed to, increase bank stabilization, reduce sediment input, increase instream habitat complexity. One of the main reasons for the installation of several structures was to reduce bank erosion along agricultural fields. Scientifically it could be argued as to what and where structures were placed. However given the constraints both socially and politically no one can argue with the benefit that has occurred, and will continue to occur. Other factors that this project will attempt to gain a better understanding of is the amount and timing of water withdrawal. This will be done through various stream and diversion measurements. The project will attempt to establish an increased law enforcement presence to deter and reduce the amount and quantity of poaching that takes place on the limited number of adult and smolting steelhead. Additional, enforcement will center around the monitoring and prevention of environmental violations (i.e. fill and removal). E The expected outcome is to reduce fine sediment input, increase riparian shading, reduce summer stream temperatures, improve instream habitat complexity, and increase late season flows. As a result of these measures it is expected that steelhead, resident redband trout and several wildlife species will increase in numbers. The time frame for the desired outcome for each habitat component is variable. Some areas of the project have already made marked improvement. But there are some areas both inside and outside the leased areas that will need either more time for recovery, or some additional type of restoration effort (this includes addressing problems in the uplands). Areas that are in need of recovery outside of the BPA riparian leased ground are being addressed via the Trout Creek Watershed Council (Asst. Project Leader is an active participant). Additional projects inside and outside the riparian leased areas will be identified as to causative factors and appropriate methods for habitat restoration techniques. Any potential funding sources will be investigated and cost sharing opportunities thoroughly explored. F One of the frustrations on this project has been the historical lack of funding to implement monitoring and evaluation on the work that has been accomplished. There is scant baseline or post implementation data. In the past we have tried, to incorporate and request finding for monitoring and evaluation. Due to lack of funding we have been unable to generate the data we feel is necessary to adequately assess the various aspects of this project. Emphasis has now been placed on monitoring the results of BPA projects, and there is a real need to review the work that has been accomplished. For this fiscal year we will assess the results of the funding for the fifteenmile monitoring and evaluation proposal. If this type of project is funded, we will submit a similar type of monitoring and evaluation proposal. Similarly, if the fifteenmile project is rejected we will evaluate the aspects that were not up to snuff, and develop a different monitoring and evaluation project. ODFW strongly supports the concept of assessing the project and learning what has been accomplished and what need to be reassessed. This is vital in the efficient allocation of limited resources to hasten the recovery of native salmonid stocks.


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
Date:
May 13, 1998
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Technical Issue: Concern about excessive O&M costs – describe how the budget is appropriate for the proposed O&M work.

Technical Issue: Explain if illegal harvest is a critical limiting factor that justifies the law enforcement task.

Technical Issue: Part of the project should be committed to monitoring the maintenance and operations activities. Need to describe a monitoring program to determine if the original proposal objectives are still being met; and to evaluate the benefits and results from the O&M.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
1999 2000 2001
$298,000 $333,900 $339,934
Comment:
Reduction due to elimination of enforcement task

ISRP Review , ISRP 1998-1 Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Justification for emphasis on instream structures is not well described. The relationship of this project to a comprehensive strategy for Trout Creek or watershed analysis is not provided. The Trout Creek proposals should be integrated and related to a comprehensive strategy.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$383,662
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$383,662
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$383,662
Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page