FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 21014
Contents
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
Additional documents
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Mitigate Streambank Sediment Sources in Fifteenmile Watershed using Bioengineering Techniques |
Proposal ID | 21014 |
Organization | Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (Wasco SWCD) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Ron Graves |
Mailing address | 2325 River Road, Suite 3 The Dalles, OR 97058 |
Phone / email | 5412966178 / ron-graves@or.nacdnet.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Ron Graves |
Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Fifteenmile |
Short description | Treat seven sites of active streambank erosion using bioengineering techniques that promote revegetation of banks, dissipates hydrologic energy and create instream habitat. |
Target species | Salmonids (winter steelhead, spring chinook), Pacific Lamprey and resident redband trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
45.623 | -121.0131 | Diamond K |
45.62 | -120.99 | Markman |
45.51 | -121.03 | Wrentham |
45.44 | -121.1 | Dry Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
2000 | Two Rivers No-till Direct Seeding Demo; implemented 900 acres of no-till in White River watershed |
2000 | Fifteenmile Watershed Project:272 ac. strip system, 62 sediment basins, 11624 ft. terraces, 4977 ac. no-till, 6 ac. irrig. impr. |
1999 | Fifteenmile Watershed Project; Wrapped up 3 year. FEMA hazard mitigation program geared to control runoff and erosion |
1998 | Fifteenmile Watershed Project; 620 ac. strip systems, 65 sed. basins, 31,381 ft. terraces, 501 acres no-till |
1997 | Fifteenmile Watershed Project; formed watershed council, developed watershed action plan, began implementation |
1997 | Fifteenmile Bioengineering Demo.; stabilized headcut and 717 ft. of bank with biodegradable geotextile, soil, plants |
1996 | Emergency Watershed Protection; completed 43 restoration projects following February 1996 flood. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
199304000 | Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project | Complimentary projects. Restoration project implements fencing and off stream water developments but includes no active bank restoration. This project addresses site specific sediment sources. |
199304001 | 15-Mile Creek Steelhead Smolt Production | Complimentary projects |
Mid-Columbia Riparian Buffers | Complimentary projects. This project addresses site specific sediment problems, while Buffer project extends work begun by ODFW, enrolling stream reaches in the CREP program. | |
Accelerate the Application of Integrated Pest Management to Reduce the Risk of Pesticide Pollution in Wasco County Orchards in Fifteenmile Watershed | Complimentary projects - this proposal focuses on stream/riparian restoration, while the referenced proposal works on upland sources of pollution. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1.Prepare for implementation | a. prepare/obtain landowner agreements | 2 | $800 | |
b. develop detailed engineering drawings and specifications | 2 | $4,290 | ||
c. apply for permits | 2 | $702 | ||
d. NEPA consultation | 2 | $1,560 | ||
e. Cultural resources survey | 2 | $663 | ||
f. Develop contract bid packages | 2 | $2,925 | ||
g. contract reviews | 2 | $780 | ||
h. conduct site showings | 2 | $546 | ||
i. award contracts | 2 | $312 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2002 |
---|
$4,166 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
2. Stabilize and revegetate 1800 feet of actively eroding streambank in Lower Fifteenmile Creek and Dry Creek. | a. Deflect flow from 1350 ft of bank in six locations using 14 upstream barbs and 1deflector. Shape banks, install toe rock, and biodegradable fabric lifts, seed 725 feet of streambank in 2 separate locations. | 2 | $136,649 | Yes |
b. Seed disturbed areas and plant 1965 feet of streambank with willows or other locally-adapted tree species. | 2 | $850 | ||
c. Install 1350 feet of fencing in 4 locations and 750 ft. in 2 locations | 3 | $3,818 | Yes | |
d. monitor construction while in progress; conduct final inspection for acceptance. | 2 | $3,198 | ||
3. Enhance instream structure in 14 locations. | Install 14 upstream barbs to absorb and redirect stream energy, and to gather sediment and seed source for riparian vegetation (see task 4b); | 2 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
---|---|
$33,033 | $3,455 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
4. Maintain sites for at least 10 years | a. prior to implementation, landowners sign agreement accepting all maintenance responsibility for 10 years. | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
5. Monitor recovery. | a. establish photo points and conduct semiannual photo monitoring. | 5 | $156 | |
b. evaluate vegetation recovery and effectiveness of site treatments | 5 | $156 | ||
6. Submit required reports | a. develop and submit annual project report and final report | 3 | $1,950 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|---|---|
$1,950 | $975 | $312 | $312 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 0.5 | $15,735 |
Fringe | all other personnel expenses est. at 30% salary | $4,721 |
Supplies | plant materials | $850 |
NEPA | (included as 0.3 man month in personnel) | $0 |
Subcontractor | bioengineering practices contracted by SWCD | $136,649 |
Subcontractor | fencing | $1,400 |
$159,355 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $159,355 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $159,355 |
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
no previous budget
Reason for change in scope
no previous proposal
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
landowners | 25% cost-share on implementation | $34,000 | cash |
NRCS | design engineering | $3,200 | in-kind |
ODFW | technical consultation | $3,200 | in-kind |
SWCD | admin | $3,000 | in-kind |
Volunteer groups | planting labor | $2,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Fencing may be contracted by the landowner. The SWCD will then reimburse landowners for 75% of their expenses. Instream barbs, bank shaping, and placement of fabric lifts, will be contracted by the SWCD. Willows will be planted by SWCD personnel with the assistance of volunteer groups. Photomonitoring will be acomplished by SWCD personnel.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. Roll up into an overall watershed restoration plan. Past success with this approach in the watershed was evident from the site visit. This is costly work thus there is a need to ensure the habitat is protected from future bank erosion. Do salmonids use these areas for spawning and rearing? Areas visited did not appear to be prime rearing habitat. Proponents have been active at this and other tasks in the watershed (fencing, etc.). Some indication that major sediment sources are being addressed is required - has there been a sediment source analysis and is this the key source? Perhaps some level of monitoring success at achieving reduced erosion and sedimentation by a sub-sampling scheme (sediment traps?) could be considered. Done right, the bank erosion work in this watershed could provide demonstration of the techniques and benefits for other subbasins in the area with similar plans.Comment:
This project exemplifies the patchwork criticism from the ISRP. The work is based on opportunities by cooperative landowners and not by a prioritized method of implementation. This project should wait for a comprehensive habitat assessment. The cost per mile for this type of work is very high without a major contribution to the stream for fish and wildlife. There are other techniques that could be used at this site that would cost less and provide greater benefits to the fish. We would like to see a more explicit plan for disseminating the information to other farmers and ranchers to encourage more landowner participation in projects like this. Some of the sites identified in the proposal do address current fish and wildlife management priorities. Other sites within the proposal would not rank as high priorities within the Fifteenmile subbasin. It would be interesting for the project sponsors to provide alternate techniques that may focus on benefits for fish, with a monitoring plan to measure benefits of the various restoration techniques.Comment:
Fundable. Roll up into an overall watershed restoration plan. Past success with this approach in the watershed was evident from the site visit. This is costly work thus there is a need to ensure the habitat is protected from future bank erosion. Do salmonids use these areas for spawning and rearing? Areas visited did not appear to be prime rearing habitat. Proponents have been active at this and other tasks in the watershed (fencing, etc.). Some indication that major sediment sources are being addressed is required - has there been a sediment source analysis and is this the key source? The bank erosion work in this watershed could provide demonstration of the techniques and benefits for other subbasins in the area with similar plans.Comment:
Comment: