Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198402100

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 Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in the John Day Subbasin
BPA Project Proposal Number 198402100
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 Tim Bailey
Mailing Address 73471 Mytinger Lane
City, State, Zip Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone 5412762344
Fax 5412762344
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin John Day
Short Description Establish long term riparian, fish habitat and tributary passage improvement on private lands within the John Day Subbasin.
Target Species Spring Chinook and Summer Steelhead

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: 2.1, 7.6A.2, 7.6B.1, 7.6B.3, 7.6B.4, 7.6B.5, 7.6B.6, 7.6C, 7.6D, 7.7, 7.8D.1, 7.8E.1, 7.10
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References “Integrated System Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Production in the Columbia River Basin”, CBFWA 1990. “John Day River Basin : Recommended Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Improvenent Measures”, CTUIR 1984. “John Day River Basin Fish Habitat Improvement Implementation Plan”, ODFW 1987. “Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation”, 1990, John Day River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. “County Court for the State of Oregon for Grant County”, 1992 Decision and Order # 92-22: Riparian Management Policy. “Bureau of Reclaimation, 1990, Upper John Day River Basin Master Water Plan Working Paper.” “Malheur National Forest, 1990, Land and Resource Management Plan.” “Oregon Water Resources Dept., May 1992, Stream Restoration Program for the Upper Mainstem Subbasin of the John Day River.” “Oregon Water Resources Dept., May 1991, Stream Restoration Program for the Middle F

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

Year Accomplishment
1998 Constructed 132 miles of riparian livestock exclosure fencing protecting 72 miles of stream and 1,512 acres of riparian habitat. Planted 7,450 riparian trees or shrubs, and installed 3,040 instream structures.

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
8402500 Protect And Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat In Grande Ronde Basin Streams Shares funding and personnel to implement and maintain projects on Camas Creek. No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Restore riparian vegetation species diversity and community structure so the positive interaction of the stream, riparian zone and floodplain perpetuate and maintain normative ecological and physical processes. a. Prepare and obtain landowner lease agreements for FY 2000 work.
1. b. Walk streams to identify work areas, plan work, layout and mark specific sites where riparian fencing, water developments and plantings will be implemented.
1. c. Develop construction schedules, engineer project specifications, advertise for construction bids, select contractors and obtain permits for implementation activities.
1. d. Purchase construction materials and supplies necessary to construct planned habitat improvements.
1. e. Construct 4.5 miles of fence on Long Creek, and 13 miles of fence on Bear Creek to allow the restoration and protection of riparian vegetation and instream habitat.
1. f. Construct offsite water developments to remove livestock pressure from riparian fences and encourage livestock to use upland pastures.
1. g. Restore riparian vegetation by seeding grasses in areas disturbed during construction and planting native trees and shrubs where necessary.
2. Improve instream habitat diversity by constructing instream structures and placing large wood. a. Prepare and obtain landowner lease agreements for FY 2000 work.
2. b. Survey/assess streams to identify work areas, plan work, layout and mark specific sites where bank stabilization and instream structures will be implemented.
2. c. Develop construction schedules, engineer project specifications, advertise for construction bids, select contractors and obtain permits for implementation activities.
2. d. Purchase construction materials and supplies necessary to construct planned habitat improvements.
2. e. Construct instream fish habitat and streambank stabilization structures determined during prework assessment on Long and Bear creeks.
3. Maintain exsitng riparian exclosure fences, vegetative plantings, and instream structures to insure that project benefits persist along 66 stream miles and 1512 acres of protected riparian habitat. a. Inspect instream fish habitat structures on 66 miles of treated stream reaches. Assess maintenance needs following spring runoff and perform necessary repairs if funds are provided by BPA.
3. b. Inspect and maintain 132 miles of riparian protection fences.
3. c. Inspect and maintain 157 project livestock watering sites. Maintenance shall include installation of all watergaps in the spring and removal of all watergaps in the fall.
3. d. Inspect and maintain 1512 acres of project vegetation plantings and seedings. Perform noxious weed control measures where necessary.
3. e. Inspect and maintain three fish passage structures before spring steelhead migrations.
4. Monitor and evaluate fish habitat improvement projects to determine if project goals and objectives are being met. a. Take 181 photopoint pictures at selected sites and compare to previous years to document stream channel condition and riparian recovery.
4. b. Install eight thermogrpaphs to document stream temperature changes resulting from habitat treatment measures.
4. c. Measure stream cross section transects previously established at 20 sites on the Mainstem and 20 sites on Fox Creek and compare to previous years to document changes in stream width, depth and profile.
4. d. Count chinook redds on 12 miles of the Mainstem and steelhead redds on 3 miles of Fox Creek and 2 miles of Fivemile Creek. Compare counts to previous years to document anadromous fish population increases in these treated streams.
4. e. Count nesting species of neotropical songbirds and compare to previous years on one mile of the Mainstem and one mile of Fox Creek to document their use of recovering riparian vegetation.
4. f. Summarize, tabulate and graph data from photoghaphs, thermographs, cross section transects, redd counts and songbird species counts. Evaluate results and prepare explainations of how habitat treatment measures have affected the results.
5. Coordinate with and educate landowners and agencies regarding project activities to gain maximum benefit. a. Coordinate habitat enhancement efforts other agencies (ie. USFS, NRCS, OWRD, DSL, GSWCD, CTUIR, CTWSIR), organizations (ie. Nature Conservancy) and fish habitat programs to insure maximum technology transfer and program consistancy.
5. b. Make presentations to other agencies, private organizations, school /youth education groups and the news media to publicize project accomplishments.
5. c. Work cooperatively with private landowners to promote, and assist with, management activities beneficial to the protection and restoration of riparian areas and watersheds on their lands.
5. d. Prepare and distribute quarterly and annual reports of project constructon, monitoring, coordination and education accomplishments.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 06/01/00 10/01/00 40.0%
2 07/01/00 09/01/00 10.0%
3 03/01/00 02/01/01 35.0%
4 05/01/00 11/01/00 10.0%
5 03/01/00 02/01/01 5.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 2 FTE's, 1 Temp $ 99,200
Fringe 38% of Personnel amount $ 37,696
Supplies Fence materials, instream materials, field supplies $ 62,500
Operating This is for supplies and materials only. $ 18,000
Capital Solar water pumps, chainsaw, replace an all terrain vehicle $ 12,000
Travel $ 17,000
Indirect 35.5 % of Personnel, Fringe, O & M and travel $ 87,470
Subcontractor Fence and instream construction $ 92,180
Total Itemized Budget $426,046

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $426,046
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $426,046
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 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

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $440,000 $455,000 $470,000 $485,000
Total Outyear Budgets $440,000 $455,000 $470,000 $485,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Catastrophic natural events such as floods, windstorms or extreme fire danger

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Beschta, R. L., Platts, W.S., and B. Kaufman. 1991. Field review of fish habitat improvement projects in the Grande Ronde and John Day River basins of eastern Oregon. No
Bilby, R. E., and G. E. Likens. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61(5): 1107-1113. No
Bisson, P.A., B.E. Bilby, M. Bryant, C. Dollof, G. Grette, R. House, M. Murphy, K. Koski, and J. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debirs in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest. In Cundy, T; Salo, E., eds. Proceedings of a symposium streamside management - No
Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. W.R. Mehan ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Mangement on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138. No
Chaney E., Elmore W., Platts W. 1993. Managing change: livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Eagle, Idaho. No
CTUIR (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation). 1984. Recommended salmon and steelhead improvement measures for the John Day River basin. Pendleton, Oregon. No
Cummins, K. W., G. W. Minshall, J. R. Sedell, C. E. Cushing and R. C. Peterson. 1984. Stream ecosystem theory. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22: 1818-1827. No
Elmore, W., and R. L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands 9(6): 250-265. No
House, R. A. and P. L. Boehne. 1985. Evaluation of instream enhancement structures for salmonid spawning and rearing in a coastal Oregon stream. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 5: 283-295. No
Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the River: Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia River Ecosystem. No
Keller E.A., and F. J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic material on channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface Processes vol. 4: 361-380. No
Lindsay R. B., W. J. Knox, M.W. Flesher, B.J. Smith, E.A. Olson, and L.S. Lutz. 1985. Study of wild spring chinook salmon in the John Day River system. U.S. Dept of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife. DOE/BP-39 No
Meehan, W. R., and W. S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33:274-278. No
Meehan, W.R., editor. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. No
Neal, J.A., Jerome, J. 1996. John Day fish habitat improvement project annual report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland , Oregon. No
NMFS. 1997. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. August 1997 Draft. No
NPPC. 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, OR. No
OWRD (Oregon Water Resources Department). 1992. Stream restoration program for the John Day River subbasin. Salem, Oregon. No
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, 1990, John Day River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan, Portland Oregon. No
Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. W.R. Meehan ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Mangement on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society No
Platts, 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock. Nevada Department of Fish and Wildlife. No
Reeves, G.H., J. D. Hall, T. D. Roelofs, T. L. Hickman, and C. O. Baker. 1991. Rehabilitating and modifying stream habitats. W.R. Meehan ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Mangement on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society No
Reeves, G. H., D. B. Hohler, B. E. Hansen, F. H. Everest, J.R. Sedell, T. L. Hickman, and D. Shively. 1996. Fish habitat restoration in the pacific northwest: Fish Creek of Oregon. Pages 335-358 in J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck No
Rhoades, McCullough and Espinoza. 1994. A coarse screening process for evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and rearing habitat. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Technical Report. No
Roper, B. R., D. Konnof, D. Heller and K. Wieman. 1998. Durability of pacific northwest instream structures following floods. North Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 18:686-693. No
Rosgen, D.R., 1996 Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. No
Sedell, J.R., P.A. Bisson, F. J. Swanson, and S.V. Gregory. 1988. What we know about large trees that fall into streams and rivers. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229:47-81. No
Soloazzi, M. F., J. D. Rodgers, and S. L. Johnson. 1992. Annaul Progress Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. No
Stuart, A., Lacy, M., Williams, S. 1987. John Day River Fish Habitat Project Implementation Plan. Oregon Dapartment of Fish and Wildlife. John Day, Oregon. No
White, R. J. 1975. In-stream management for wild trout. Pages 48-58 in W. King ed. Proceedings, wild trout management symposium. Trout Unlimited, Vienna, Virginia. No

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund for one year with medium priority
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Fund for one year with medium priority. Subsequent funding contingent on demonstration of biologically measurable results and future monitoring plans.

Comments: The Council should determine if the continued installation and annual operation and maintenance are cost effective in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife. Reviewers invite a summary of results from some 15 years of stream fencing and other improvements to establish some level of success: In short, the proposal should be able to demonstrate biologically measurable results. They should use science-based quantitative data to demonstrate cost-effective gains toward the primary objective. The reviewers urge more complete measurements of quantity/quality of all life stages of fish species of concern, documented and analyzed, with appropriate comparisons with unfenced areas for statistical analysis. The costs of fencing and protecting riparian corridors, combined with the politics of fencing issues, require comprehensive science-based analysis, which then can be used to plot successful long-term, cost-effective strategies. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.

State and Federal Government should seek incentive systems that appropriately motivate and reward landowners who protect riparian habitat. This would afford an improved economic policy and complement other studies in the basin.

Specific comments and questions that should also be address are: The author(s) offer no comparative cost data from other subbasins or methods in behalf of habitat protection. Measures of success for past restoration activities are expressed in non-biological terms (number of leases, acres of riparian vegetation fenced, stream miles, etc.). About 8.4 miles of a total of 542 miles of stream in the John Day Subbasin are proposed for enhancement/protection in this proposal, but too few data are offered to document how this 1.5 per cent of the total stream length was selected. Noting the claim that 8 projects have met the objective and 27 are said to be improving, quantitative criteria are absent. These would be useful to confirm that "objective" and appropriate criteria and standards were used in computing this record.

Objective No. 4 (monitoring and evaluating) relies on indirect measurement of larval and juvenile salmon productivity indexes, including redd counts. Because adult salmon returns are influenced by many factors other than stream improvement, this is not an adequate indicator unless accompanied by appropriate statistical analysis and comparisons to relevant controls (unimproved areas).

The proposal argues persuasively for 15-year leases and continued maintenance, but there is inadequate information on what may follow. Are there appropriate incentives for landowners to continue maintenance?

The proposal cites increased redd counts as evidence of program success in some streams, but credible science-based evidence is lacking. Increased redd counts could be due to other factors or projects, including random error.

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Most cost increase due to ODFW indirect rate increase. Kudos for including songbird and morphology studies. #5- Donated leases on substantial acreage and in-kind; no $ quantified. #6 - Will need O&M to sustain improvements, but proposal shows some landowner support

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
One of the best written proposals.

Proposal exceeds the page limit.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

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

Return to top of page