Return to Proposal Finder FY 2001 Ongoing Proposal 198710001

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget Summary

Reviews and Recommendations
No documents associated with this request


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat
BPA Project Proposal Number 198710001
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Business acronym (if appropriate) CTUIR
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name R. Todd Shaw
Mailing Address P.O. Box 638
City, State, Zip Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone 5412764109
Fax 5412764348
E-mail toddshaw@ctuir.com
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Gary James
 
Review Cycle FY 2001 Ongoing
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Umatilla
 
Short Description Increase natural production of summer steelhead, chinook salmon and coho salmon in the Umatilla River Basin.
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


Biological Outcomes of this project: The project focuses on areas of the basin that are expected to provide the greatest benefit for salmonids. Pre-project surveys and monitoring identify those factors most limiting salmonid production. Restoration efforts will continue to meet these needs with long-term goals of restoring proper floodplain and channel function. Expected biological outcomes include: 1. Improved survival of incubating eggs through reduction of sediment input and water temperatures. 2. Elevated juvenile densities and survival as a result of improved channel diversity, pool habitat, riparian cover and increased populations of invertebrate species. 3. Improved adult return and usage as a result of elevated pool holding habitat and spawning gravels. 4. Increased riparian and upland vegetation by excluding livestock, supplementing native plants, encouraging floodplain function and stabilizing channel form to reduce erosion. Enhancements including, livestock exclusion, erosion control, large wood placements and supplemental plantings of native plant species will be utilized to meet biological outcomes. Channel configuration work will be implemented only as needed to accelerate and protect stream bank improvements. Over time, and the return of a healthy riparian plant community, improvements can be expected in stream bank stability, channel shading, insect drop, macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance, large wood recruitment, pool formation, bank storage, and ultimately elevated juvenile outmigration and adult salmon/steelhead returns. Ecological benefits associated with habitat restoration often require years to achieve. Biological outcomes, particularly those that are quantifiable, may be difficult to directly credit to habitat restoration efforts. Recovery rates of project sites vary considerably with climate, elevation and past land use. Restoration approaches also play a significant role in the response of biological indicators. For example, salmonid populations will typically respond quickly to large wood and pool reintroduction. However, this may not represent the best long-term management proposal for the site. Habitat restoration is a slow business at best and although some sites will realize almost immediate benefits, others may take decades to produce similar results.
Biological Data: The overall project goal is to protect and enhance habitat for improved natural production of salmon and steelhead. The project focuses on correcting habitat factors most limiting to salmonid production. Project monitoring measures biological outcomes to determine effects of habitat enhancements efforts. The following pre and post-project monitoring methods are utilized under this project to evaluate biological outcomes and allow for adaptive management: 1. Summer stream temperatures (maximum, minimim and mean) are monitored from June through September of each year. Stream temperature data monitors the effectiveness of habitat enhancements on water temperature cooling. 2. Suspended sediment samples are taken year round at 6-hour intervals to create a composite daily sample. Data derived from sediment samples includes Jackson Turbidity Units, conductivity, total suspended solids and total dissolved solids. Suspended sediment data is correlated with stream flow data to arrive at daily sediment loads (tons/day) estimates. Continued sediment monitoring will assist in determining water quality changes over time. 3. Cross-section data is collected pre-project and continues to be taken once every three to five years thereafter. This information is useful in determining stream channel morphological responses from habitat enhancements. 4. Photos are taken in spring and autumn of each year to provide a visual record of changes in channel morphology and vegetative responses to habitat enhancements. This information provides managers with a visual tool of change over time and aids in the promotion of restoration activities. 5. Fish population estimates are sampled pre and post-project to determine anadromous fish presence and utilization as a result of habitat improvements. This information is useful in determining habitat use, species composition, and densities. 6. Macroinvertebrate samples are collected to monitor biological integrity of streams, since they function as integrators of pollution over time and are a direct measure of beneficial uses (aquatic life support). Biotic indexes are calculated using the indicator taxa conecept. Macroinvertebrate data assists in detecting trends over time. 7. Habitat surveys are conducted pre-project to obtain baseline physical data. Post-project surveys will be conducted periodically to determine changes in stream hydrology, channel characteristics and riparian plant communities.


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
1999 Three barriers addressed to provide fish passage to approximately 12 stream miles of previously inaccessible habitat.
1999 Installation of one rock vane.
2000 A total of 37 riparian easements secured since 1988.
2000 A total of 16 stream miles enhanced since 1988.
2000 A total of 20.44 miles of riparian livestock enclosure fencing constructed since 1988.
2000 A total of 5,900 pounds of native grasses seeded since 1988.
2000 A total of 51,000 native trees/shrubs planted since 1988.
2000 A total of 351 trees/root wads placed in stream since 1988.
2000 A total of 65 tree/root wad revetments installed since 1988.
2000 A total of 95 sediment retention structures constructed since 1994.
2000 A total of 17 log or boulder weirs constructed since 1988.
2000 A total of 39 log and boulder deflectors constructed since 1988.
2000 A total of ten cultural/archeological surveys and associated reports since 1988.
2000 A total of 88 photo points established since 1988.
2000 A total of 94 stream channel cross sections established and monitored since 1988.
2000 Four years of macroinvertebrate survey data (4 reports, 60 samples) since 1996.
2000 Stream temperature data from 21 sites since 1989.
2000 Suspended sediment data from 3 sites since 1989.
2000 Two bioengineering workshops since 1995.
2000 Five public scoping meetings since 1993.
2000 Numerous presentations, tours, etc.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Continue to identify detrimental land use practices and develop watershed-wide solutions to address habitat impacts in the Umatilla River Basin. a. Continue and complete a watershed assessment to assist with identification of fisheries habitat limiting factors and determination/prioritization of remedial measures. 3 years $ 10,000 x
b. Continue to conduct outreach efforts (public meetings, tours and presentations) to obtain input, identify landowner concerns, provide educational opportunities, and promote habitat restoration and protection. indefinite $ 20,790  
2. Plan, design and propose fiscal year 2001 habitat enhancement projects. a. Prepare grant proposals and coordinate with local, state and federal resource agencies to develop cost-share projects. indefinite $ 5,198  
b. Develop and secure riparian easements on private properties for proposed habitat enhancements. indefinite $ 10,395  
c. Obtain necessary environmental clearances, including Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act cultural and archeological compliance, Sections 401 and 404 Federal Clean Water Act Permits and Section 7 U.S. Endangered Species Act consultations indefinite $ 25,988  
d. Complete project design and layout. indefinite $ 15,592  
e. Solicit bids and award subcontracts for fence construction, operated equipment, rock purchase and delivery, log purchase and delivery, native tree and shrub plantings, and noxious weed control. indefinite $ 25,988  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$136,000 $144,000 $121,000 $128,500


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
3. Implement habitat enhancement projects on private properties in the Umatilla River Basin to achieve habitat recovery. a. Construct root wad and rock revetments, deflectors, vanes, weirs, etc. with an excavator. indefinite $ 42,720 x
b. Construct livestock exclusion fencing around project areas. indefinite $ 40,000 x
c. Install native willow cuttings and various bareroot tree and shrub species with an excavator alnog stream channel margins. indefinite $ 30,000 x
d. Seed native grasses and hand plant indigenous trees and shrubs in project areas. indefinite $ 44,003  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$192,500 $204,500 $171,000 $181,500


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
4. Maintain habitat enhancements within project areas. a. Maintain livestock exclusion fencing. duration of riparian easement $ 13,278  
b. Care of trees and shrubs, including watering, tree mat placement and tree shelter installation. approximately five years per individual project $ 14,431  
c. Treat noxious weeds in existing project areas. duration of riparian easement $ 15,000 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$ 51,000 $ 54,000 $ 45,500 $ 48,000


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
5. Collect baseline data and conduct post-project monitoring to identify habitat limiting factors and to quantify effects of habitat enhancement measures. a. Measure changes in channel morphology and vegetative responses to habitat enhancements at new and established photo point and stream channel transect sites. life of project $ 4,921  
b. Conduct habitat surveys in proposed habitat enhancement project areas to obtain baseline physical data. life of project $ 6,860  
c. Conduct biological inventories to determine pre and post-project anadromous fish presence. life of project $ 4,621  
d. Sample macroinvertebrate populations to document macroinvertebrate response to enhanced versus unenhanced areas. life of project. $ 4,984  
e. Monitor stream temperatures during summer months to determine effectiveness of habitat enhancements on cooling water temperatures. $ 4,825  
f. Collect suspended sediment samples to obtain total suspended sediment, total dissolved sediment and conductivity data. life of project $ 1,116  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$ 33,000 $ 35,000 $ 29,000 $ 31,000


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2001 Cost
Personnel FTE: 13 months (various personnel) $ 47,998
Fringe 30% $ 14,399
Supplies phone services, office supplies, duplication/printing, educational materials $ 9,828
Travel GSA vehicle lease, mileage, insurance, fuel and maintenance, and training and per diem $ 5,350
Indirect 34% of personnel & fringe, supplies and travel $ 26,376
NEPA included above in Personnel $ 0
Subcontractor Washington State University - Watershed Assessment $ 10,000
Personnel FTE: 10.5 months (biologist, assistant biologist, technician, seasonal) $ 22,534
Fringe 30% $ 6,760
Supplies fence materials, native trees/shrubs, native grass seed and field materials $ 45,000
Travel GSA vehicle lease, mileage, insurance, fuel and maintenance, and training and per diem $ 5,350
Indirect 34% of personnel, fringe benefits, construction materials, field materials and travel $ 27,079
Subcontractor fence construction, operated heavy equipment, rock & root wad transport and noxious weed control $ 50,000
Personnel FTE: 2.5 months (biologist, technician, seasonal) $ 9,214
Fringe 30% $ 2,764
Supplies tools, fence materials, tree mats and tree shelters $ 7,000
Travel GSA vehicle lease, vehicle mileage, vehicle insurance, fuel and vehicle maintenance $ 1,700
Indirect 34% of personnel, fringe benefits, supplies & materials and travel $ 7,031
Subcontractor noxious weed control $ 15,000
Personnel FTE: 4 months (biologist, assistant biologist, technician and seasonal) $ 11,908
Fringe 30% $ 3,572
Supplies lab fees for macroinvertebrate samples and suspended sediment samples $ 3,213
Travel GSA vehicle lease, vehicle mileage, vehicle insurance, fuel and vehicle maintenance $ 1,700
Indirect 34% of personnel, fringe benefits and travel $ 6,934
Total Itemized Budget $340,710


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 project cost $340,710
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2001 budget request $340,710
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 $315,000
% change from forecast 8.2%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Budget is slightly higher than anticipated because of additional funds required for: (1) increased project personnel time to develop biological assessments for proposed enhancements, including proposed noxious weed treatments and 404 fill and removal permit activitities, due to recent ESA listings (compliance with ESA Section 7 Consultation and NMFS 4d rules), and (2) recent noxious weed invasions ( kochia and wild mustard) in the Wild Horse Creek Project Area, requiring additional subcontract dollars for increased herbicide applications. These weeds are currently out-competing native trees/shrubs and bunch grasses in this project area and more intensive weed treatments are required to restore this project area to a naturally functioning state.


Reason for change in scope

Scope has not changed, just more effort is required to develop projects consistent with ESA requirements and additional dollars are needed to treat noxious weeds.


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2002 2003 2004 2005
Planning and design $121,000 $128,500 $136,000 $144,000
Construction/implementation $171,000 $181,500 $192,500 $204,500
Operations and maintenance $ 45,500 $ 48,000 $ 51,000 $ 54,000
Monitoring and evaluation $ 29,000 $ 31,000 $ 33,000 $ 35,000
Total Outyear Budgets $366,500 $389,000 $412,500 $437,500
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Reviews and Recommendations

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

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: no
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
2001
$340,710
Comment:
The budget is slightly higher than anticipated because of additional funds required for: (1) increased project personnel time to develop biological assessments for proposed enhancements, including proposed noxious weed treatments and 404 fill and removal permit activities, due to recent ESA listings (compliance with ESA Section 7 Consultation and NMFS 4d rules), and (2) recent noxious weed invasions (kochia and wild mustard) in the Wild Horse Creek Project Area, requiring additional subcontract dollars for increased herbicide applications. These weeds are currently out-competing native trees/shrubs and bunch grasses in this project area and more intensive weed treatments are required to restore this project area to a naturally functioning state.

The scope has not changed, just more effort is required to develop projects consistent with ESA requirements and additional dollars are needed to treat noxious weeds. There is a real inconsistency with the application of NEPA by BPA on these types of projects. For this project, CTUIR is paying for maintenance on fencing and weed control whereas the Districts are not generally paying for ongoing O&M.

This SRT wants to raise a flag on the inconsistency among BPA projects for O&M/M&E requirements under the agreements that are being negotiated with landowners. Application of NEPA also has been inconsistent among BPA COTRs.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
2001
$270,987
Comment:
Rationale: Budget increase inappropriate in this review.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$350,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$350,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$350,000
Sponsor (Confederated Tribes Of The Umatilla Indian Reservation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page