FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25087

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

Title	Type
25087 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Desolation Creek Rehabilitation and Meadow Restoration
Proposal ID	25087
Organization	U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Kristy L. Groves
Mailing address	PO BOX 158 Ukiah, OR 97880
Phone / email	5414273564 / kgroves@fs.fed.us
Manager authorizing this project	John Sanchez
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	To recover or reconstruct stream channel and rehabilitate Desolation Meadow on the North Fork of Desolation Creek.
Target species	steelhead, bull trout, chinook salmon, resident redband trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.82	-118.6525	North Fork Desolation Creek runs through a complex of meadows at 5,500 feet of elevation in the Blue Mountains of Northeast Oregon located in the Southeast portion of the North Fork John Day Ranger District of the Umatilla National Forest

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	New Project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
20003100	North Fork John Day Habitat Project	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
9303800	North Fork John Day Fish Habitat Enhancement	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
833950	North Fork John Day Habitat Improvement	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
8400800	North Fork John Day Habitat Improvement	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
9605300	North Fork John Day Dredge-Tailings Restoration	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
8402100	Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in the John Day Subbasin	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
8402200	Mainstem and Upper John Day Habitat Improvement	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
8507100	South Fork John Day & Mainstem Habitat Improvement	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.
980170	Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams on Lower North Fork John Day	What all of these projects have in common is that the main goal is to improve water quality and quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat available for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout through riparian restoration or in channel work.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
NEPA	Develop restoration plan and complete NEPA	1	$30,000
Layout Restoration Plan		1	$10,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

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

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 1. To recover or reconstruct the stream to a stable condition where it is able to handle the flows and sediment that the watershed produces without either aggrading or degrading.	2003	2003	$100,000
Objective 2. To bring the water table back to the surface of the meadow, where appropriate	2003	2003	$20,000
Objective 3. To recover the native wet/mesic meadow vegetation.	2004	2004	$15,000
Objective 4. To improve stream habitat conditions by reducing water temperature and sediment load such that bull trout re-inhabit the meadow section and possibly upstream.	2004	2005	$10,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$120,000	$20,000	$5,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor

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 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
5. Monitor effectiveness of channel restoration and meadow rehabilitation	2004	2006	$30,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$10,000	$10,000	$10,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel		$8,000
Fringe		$0
Travel		$2,000
NEPA		$20,000
Subcontractor	to be bidded on at a later date	$10,000
		$40,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$40,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$40,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Tribes	Personnel	$2,000	cash
USFS, Blue Mountain Demo Funding	Personnel, Equipment, NEPA, vehicles	$40,000	cash

Other budget explanation

We will be requesting matching funds from the Blue Mountain Demonstation Project for all years of this project.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Do Not Fund. Inadequate proposal. This project proposes to rehabilitate an upland meadow in Desolation Creek on USFS lands. The project looks worthwhile; the problem and history of land use that created the problem are described well. Nevertheless, the proposal is extremely weak in its objectives and associated tasks. Linkages are made to the subbasin summary goals, and other regional documents, but not to the Council's FWP. Methods are entirely absent. Lack of specific methods and citations supporting their use are completely missing from the proposal and represent a serious (in this case fatal) omission from the proposal.

A policy question exists concerning whether BPA funding is appropriate for work that should be done under USFS land management -mandates. During the presentation, the ISRP asked questions about the expected land uses after the 10-year rest period during which no grazing is occurring. The PI responded that the stream corridor would be fenced, but did not provide definitive statements of how the factors that contributed to the habitat decline would be controlled.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project will recover or reconstruct stream channel and rehabilitate Desolation Meadow on the North Fork of Desolation Creek.

Comments
While project looks worthwhile, the proposal is not strong in its objectives & associated tasks. Specific methods & citations supporting their use are absent from the proposal.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank C

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This project would recover or reconstruct stream channel and rehabilitate Desolation Meadow on the North Fork of Desolation Creek on USFS land. This work would enhance a degraded area, rather than protect a productive area. USFS should fund.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: