Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199401806

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 Implement Tucannon River Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid Habitat
BPA Project Proposal Number 199401806
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Columbia Conservation District
Business acronym (if appropriate) CCD
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Terry Bruegman
Mailing Address 202 South Second Street
City, State, Zip Dayton, WA 99328-1327
Phone 5093824773 5
Fax 5093824273
E-mail ccd@bmi.net
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Tucannon
 
Short Description Restore, protect, & enhance fish habitat, riparian, & upland areas to address FWP measure 7.6, habitat goal, policies, & objectives.
Target Species Snake River Spring Chinook Salmon, Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon, Snake River Summer Steelhead, & Bull Trout.


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: 7.6, 7.6A-D, 7.7, 7.7A, 7.8B.1,
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: ESA listed species, Snake River Spring Chinook, Snake River Fall Chinook, & Snake River Steelhead. USFWS T&E listed Bull Trout.
Other Planning Document References Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan, Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kish Wit, WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Wild Salmonid Policy, Bonneville Power Administration Tucannon Sub-Basin Plan, Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority FY 1999 Annual Implementation Work Plan


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
1996 Completed Final Draft of Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan
Installed 20 habitat projects: Utilizing 5 funding sources working with 12 landowners
1997 Dormant Stock Plantings on 1996 Project sites
Installed 12 habitat projects utilizing 5 funding sources and 12 landowners
Performed O&M on 5 1996 projects - projects cost-shared due to mother nature New Year Day flooding
1998 Dormant Stock Plantings on 1997 Projects
Installed 12 habitat projects utilizing 6 funding sources and 8 landowners including the WDFW
Performed O&M on 2 1997 projects- enhanced project to insure integrity


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9401807 Continue with Implementation of Pataha Watershed Plan Pataha is the major tributary to the lower Tucannon. It negatively effects habitat and water quality in the lower Tucannon where fall chinook spawn, steelhead rear, and bull trout over winter. No
9008 Evaluate Fall Chinook Natural Production and Spawning Habitat Conditions Supportive research in fall chinook spawning area of the lower Tucannon No
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Supplementation to increase natural production in the Tucannon No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Improve adult pre-spawning survival a. Increase natural stream stability and instream pool quality and quantity
1. b. Reduce instream water temperature
1. c. Reduce erosion and sedimentation rates to maintain pool size and quality
1. d. Improve and re-establish riparian vegetation
2. Improve juvenile survival a. Increase natural stream stability and instream pool quality and quantity
2. b. Reduce instream water temperature
2. c. Reduce erosion and sedimentation rates and lower the percent of fines in spawning gravel, and maintain pool size and quality
2. d. Improve and re-establish riparian vegetation
3. Monitoring & Evaluation of habitat projects for effectiveness a. Establish site specific pre & post construction data
3. b. Validate effectiveness of projects to meet habitat objectives
3. c. Apply adaptive management
4. Coordinate Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan a. Promote cooperation and agreement between landowners and resource agencies for decision-making
4. b. Coordinate implementation of fish and wildlife habitat restoration projects
4. c. Secure supplemental funding for continued council operations and Plan implementation
4. d. Continue watershed information/education program

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/99 09/01/00 1 high-quality pool per 5-7 bankfull widths; reduce width/depth ratio to 25 ft.or less; reduce ave. temp. to 70 degrees; reduce fines in gravel to 15% of the substrate; reduce sediment delivery rates to 10%; increase canopy cover to 75% 32.0%
2 10/01/99 09/01/00 1 high-quality pool per 5-7 bankfull widths; reduce width/depth ratio to 25 ft. or less; reduce ave. temp. to 70 degrees; reduce fines in gravel to 15% of the substrate; reduce sediment delivery rates to 10%; increase canopy cover to 75% 32.0%
3 10/01/99 09/01/00 Pre & post construction data collection; 1998 2nd year evaluation; validate methods for adaptive management 16.0%
4 10/01/99 09/01/00 Increase effectiveness of fish habitat by coordinating watershed decision-making, project implementation, supplemental funding, and information/education program 20.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel .75 FTE Watershed Technical Lead .50 FTE Admin. Assistant $ 40,368
Fringe $ 9,688
Supplies Office supplies, Software upgrades, Newsletters, Presentations, Photos, Ed./Infor., Equip. Maint. $ 7,000
Operating Habitat Projects (2%) $ 6,600
Construction Habitat Project & Domant Stock Planting $192,344
Travel Meals, mileage, lodging, registration $ 7,500
Indirect Discretionary $ 16,500
Subcontractor Monitoring/evaluation $ 50,000
Total Itemized Budget $330,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $330,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $330,000
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

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Bonneville FY2000 Cash Match - Cost-Share $330,000 unknown
USDA NRCS In-kind Technical Assistance $ 50,000 unknown
USDA NRCS PL-566 Maintenance of Contractual Obligations $ 0 unknown
HB 2496 (proposal pending) Cash Match - Lead Entity & Habitat Restoration Projects $ 25,000 unknown
WA State Salmon Stratagy Recovery (proposal pending) Cash Match - Watershed Projects $ 25,000 unknown
WCC Cash Match - Upland/Cropland BMP’s $ 40,000 unknown
Landowners Cash Match - Cost-Share % $ 62,000 unknown
WDFW - State In-kind Technical Assistance $ 20,000 unknown
WDFW - LSRCP/Fed. Supplementation Efforts $ 20,000 unknown
USFS (proposal pending) Cash Match - Habitat Restoration Projects $ 20,000 unknown
USDA FSA/WA State - Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Cash Lease & Implementation Cost-Share - Riparian Restoration $ 25,000 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000
Total Outyear Budgets $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Low agriculture commodity prices negatively impact landowner ability to cost share project implementation.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream Temperature and Aquatic Habitat: Fisheries and Forestry Interactions. P. 191-232. No
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority FY 1999 Draft Annual Implementation Work Plan, Volume I. 1998. 145-146 p. Yes
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 1994. NWPPC, Portland, Oregon. Yes
Hankin, D.G. and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating Total Fish Abundance and Total Habitat Area in Small Streams Based on Visual Estimation Methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45: 834-844. No
Hecht, Barry, Robert Enkeboll, Charles F. Ivor, and Patricia Baldwin. 1982. Sediment Transport, Water Quality, and Changing Bed Conditions, Tucannon River, Southeastern Washington. 185 p. No
McIntosh, Bruce A. 1992. Stream Survey Summary for Asotin Creek and the Tucannon River. - raw data for publication of McIntosh et al. (1993). USFS PNW Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. Yes
Mendel, Glen, 1994. Personal Communication. Local Salmon Research Biologist with WDFW Snake River Lab. No
Reckendorf, Frank, and Michael VanLiew. 1988. Chapter 10-Streambed Sampling and Analysis-Tucannon Watershed, Washington. USDA/SCS West National Technical Center, Portland, Oregon. No
Rosgen, D.L., and B.L. Fittante. 1986. Fish Habitat Structures-. No
Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan Final Draft. 1997. Columbia Conservation District. Yes
Strategy for Salmon. Vol. II. 1992. NWPPC, Portland, Oregon. No
Washington Water Research Center, 1996. No
WDF&W. Snake River Recovery Plan. No


Section 7. Abstract

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
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on comprehensive review of restoration programs within the basin, and demonstration of biological benefits.

Comments: This project is very similar to Proposal 9401805. The geographic focus is slightly different (farther upriver), and the emphasis is more on in-stream improvements. This project has been ongoing since 1996 or before, and is projected to continue indefinitely. It is very difficult to review projects such as this on an annual basis, particularly when little or no information is given about project objectives and milestones. Proper oversight is not possible, nor is it likely to be, unless the project has: a) a clear end date, and b) a set of project milestones pertinent to individual years, against which progress can be measured. For instance, the proposal states that in 1998 10,000 trees were planted, and about 12,000 feet of riparian fence installed. This sounds impressive, but no indication is give of either: a) what the goal was for each of these measures, or b) how these numbers relate to the overall watershed restoration plan. Will this watershed ever be restored? Furthermore, the panel was particularly concerned that despite continued monitoring, little information was presented to indicate what benefit (or harm!) had resulted from past restoration activities. Has the project resulted in biologically measurable benefits to fish and wildlife? of the instream work, in particular, has the potential to do serious damage. The project needs to produce an evaluation, in any subsequent proposal, of sediment fate, output and stability of structures that have been affected by past project activities, and an assessment of how the fish are responding.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$253,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Hold at FY99 allocation. Reduce Objectives 1 and 2 . General reduction in the scope of the project.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Address other limiting factors such as low stream flow due to irrigation withdrawal. Lack of water in lower river is likely creating thermal block for chinook salmon.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$253,000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$318,417
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$318,417
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$318,417
Sponsor (Columbia Conservation District) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page