Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Assessment of habitat improvement actions on water temperature, streamflow, physical habitat, & aquatic community health in the Birch Creek Watershed |
Proposal ID | 25016 |
Organization | U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Bill Mcfarland |
Mailing address | 10615 SE Cherry Blossom Drive Portland OR 97216 |
Phone / email | 5032513204 / billmcf@usgs.gov |
Manager authorizing this project | Dennis Lynch, Oregon District Chief, USGS - WRD |
Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
Short description | This study will explore the reach- and watershed-scale impacts of stream-habitat improvement actions on water temperature, streamflow and the food web in the Birch Creek watershed of the Umatilla subbasin |
Target species | summer steelhead, Middle Columbia River steelhead ESU listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
45.6517 |
-118.8775 |
Birch Creek watershed, main stem river mile 0.2 |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
NMFS |
Action 154 |
NMFS |
BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
198710001 |
Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project |
The proposed study will measure the impact of habitat restoration actions |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
1. Temperature monitoring and modeling |
|
1 |
$21,000 |
|
2. Channel geomorphology investigation |
|
1 |
$13,000 |
|
3. Steelhead food-supply investigation |
|
1 |
$9,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
1. |
|
|
$0 |
2. |
|
|
$0 |
3. |
|
|
$0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
1. |
|
1 |
$66,000 |
|
2. |
|
0 |
$0 |
|
3. |
|
0 |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
1. |
|
|
$0 |
2. |
|
|
$0 |
3. |
|
|
$0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
1. |
|
10 |
$154,000 |
|
2. |
|
10 |
$75,000 |
|
3. |
|
10 |
$52,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
1. |
2003 |
2006 |
$560,000 |
2. |
2003 |
2006 |
$262,000 |
3. |
2003 |
2006 |
$204,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|
$302,000 | $224,000 | $246,000 | $254,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
1. |
|
0 |
$0 |
|
2. |
|
3 |
$13,000 |
|
3. |
|
0 |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
1. |
2003 |
2006 |
$180,000 |
2. |
2003 |
2006 |
$135,000 |
3. |
2003 |
2006 |
$40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|
$84,000 | $230,000 | $20,000 | $21,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
Personnel |
FTE: 3.5 |
$176,000 |
Fringe |
|
$41,000 |
Supplies |
|
$46,000 |
Travel |
|
$15,000 |
Indirect |
|
$105,000 |
Capital |
|
$0 |
NEPA |
|
$0 |
PIT tags |
|
$0 |
Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
Other |
laboratory analyses |
$20,000 |
| $403,000 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $403,000 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $403,000 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate response is given to ISRP concerns.
This is a very good proposal in technical respects, although it lacks links to the Subbasin Summary, FWP and BiOp. Development of the relationships expected from this project is long overdue. We can expect the usual USGS thoroughness and academic rigor. Project personnel, however, need to provide more explanation of how they intend to make the links to the biological community, specifically to fish. They need to explain how a quantitative assessment of benthic macroinvertebrates will provide better understanding of the primary food production necessary for riverine fish. Is this production defined as the rate of tissue elaboration? How does their version of "primary food production" relate to fish production? They should provide analysis of existing macroinvertebrate data to show that the variance in similar situations does not overwhelm their ability to draw useful conclusions. Identification of macroinvertebrates (in such samples) to species is a very time consuming and, thus an expensive undertaking. Will the assessment include a detailed study of what the fish eat, in what quantity, and how it changes in time? The need for such detailed analysis and how it relates to the predictive relations expected from the project should be described in more detail. The methods and justification for the food chain work are unlikely to yield the expected results due to the high variability inherent in stream insect samples. In their words, the primary hypothesis that will be tested during this project is: "In-stream conditions are measurably altered by stream-restoration actions, which ultimately promotes the health and survival of target fish species." That is the assumption of all restoration work. What is needed is a routine (simple checks, presence/absence, relative abundance) or an effectiveness monitoring program (i.e., more detailed in a few key instances) of the fish response. What is proposed suggests a process-oriented model based on detailed physical data collection versus the preferred and likely less expensive approach of measuring key response variables in a control versus treatment experiment. ). See 25065 on FLIR, the same technique to be used here, and consider the monitoring approach suggested in 25010. A response that justifies this level of detailed process-orientated approach versus an experimental analysis is required.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Aug 3, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001
Comment:
Not fundable. The response was not convincing that a mechanistic modeling approach to the understanding of the functional response in watershed restoration is justified at this time, compared to a paired-streams control and treatment analysis of key response variables. See comments under 198710001 and 198710002.
Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect effect since the proposal suggests a process-oriented model based on detailed physical data collection. Comments
Good proposal in technical aspects, although lacks links to the Subbasin Summary, FWP and BiOp. Project proponents need to explain how a quantitative assessment of benthic macro-invertebrates will provide a better understanding of how "primary food production" relate to riverine fish production? Furthermore, proposal suggests a process-oriented model based on detailed physical data collection as opposed to a "preferred" and likely less expensive approach of measuring key response variables in a control versus treatment experiment.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Recommendation:
Rank C
Date:
Oct 16, 2001
Comment:
BPA agrees with the ISRP that this proposal should not be funded, as written. It is very important to BPA - for both the NMFS’ Biological Opinion implementation and Council Fish and Wildlife Program accountability - that studies are developed and funded that measure the effects of the many and costly habitat improvement actions that we are funding. Also, Birch Creek provides a very good opportunity - in part because of the magnitude of the habitat enhancement effort in that watershed - to measure the effects on the steelhead population as well as on the physical and biological environment. However, the proposal’s description of methods is long on data collection and modeling, but does not describe well the sites, treatments (and controls, as noted by the ISRP), and analytical methods that would be necessary to scientifically “evaluate the cause and effect relationship between specific habitat enhancement actions and changes in water temperature, stream-flow, physical habitat, and aquatic communities” (proposal narrative, p. 3). We might be willing to accept on faith and the sponsor’s good reputation that the desired and promised product would be produced if this were a less-costly project.
Within Birch Creek, ODFW is conducting an ongoing basic monitoring program to support its habitat improvement work (project # 1987-100-02). However, we wish to see this and similar M&E work in the Umatilla sub-basin reviewed with external parties both to identify tasks and methods that may be unnecessary and to identify important and cost-effective improvements that could be added.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002
Comment: