FY 1999 proposal 9156
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
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 9156 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | White Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 9156 |
| Organization | White Salmon River Watershed Management Committee "WMC". WMC is coordinated by Underwood Conservation District (UCD). (UCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Steve Stampfli |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 96 White Salmon, WA 98672 |
| Phone / email | 5094931936 / steve@linkport.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Little White Salmon |
| Short description | A comprehensive, five-year plan aimed to improve instream, riparian and upslope watershed conditions and land stewardship through direct restorative actions, cooperative work with stakeholders, and promoting education and citizen involvement. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| White Salmon Whitewater Trash Rodeo event | BPA Aircraft Services donated helicopter for the accomplishment of river trash removal in 1996 and 1997. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $53,498 | |
| Fringe | 26% of composite rates | $18,796 |
| Supplies | $19,017 | |
| Operating | phone, supplies, mailing, and rent | $3,528 |
| Travel | $3,367 | |
| Subcontractor | USDA Forest Service (USFS)US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (in-kind contribution only); Yakama Indian Nation (in-kind contribution only) | $28,100 |
| $126,306 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $126,306 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $126,306 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: NA
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Return to Sponsor for Revision
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Need to describe the technical merit of the work in light of the possible removal of Condit Dam.Technical Issue: Explain how all of the tasks will be accomplished with the stated budget.
Comment:
Presentation: The construction of Condit Dam in 1913 totally blocked fish passage. In the 1980s, water quality declined (possibly due to timber harvest, construction, cattle grazing). Local groups began assessing water quality issues and put together a broad-scope watershed management plan. In 1994 the group began implementing restoration projects including education and monitoring. Enhancement work is needed in the basin. This project has 5 objectives: 1. Coordinate activities between stakeholders (Forest Service, private landowners, etc). 2. Identify and document water quality and fish habitat. (Some work has been done and it needs to be continued throughout the entire watershed. The information needs to be compiled in a central place for joint management use.) 3. Implement restoration projects based on past work and our analysis. 4. Expand public education and outreach. (the Conservation District is also using education grants). 5. Monitor and evaluate water quality.Questions/Answers:
Do any entities contribute money? Answer: Other entities provide in-kind contributions but not always money. There has been some cost share on the management plans. We have worked with dairies in the Trout Lake area.
Do you coordinate with the WDFW Region 5 office in Vancouver? Answer: We have communicated to them what we were doing. We would like to cooperate but haven't done any joint work yet.
How does thinning trees in riparian zones benefit resident fish? Answer: The trees are overstocked - which suppresses growth. Thinning increases the growth rate, larger conifers provide better shade (temperature control) and better large woody debris recruitment. Alders are abundant on the bank in the Trout Lake Creek area.
How will the restoration work be maintained in the future? What happens when the ownership/management changes?
Answer: Cost shares with the land owners ensure that the landowner will maintain the improvements for 10 years. Riparian improvements have more stringent standards. Current laws also ensure that timber companies won't harvest. We also “educate” the landowners.
Is there an overlap with other projects? Answer: Above Condit dam, we would have to coordinate those funds.
The WTWG asked for additional information on this project. Describe measures, objectives, and technical merits. Answer:
Condit Dam work will benefit resident and anadromous fish - not just resident fish. Within the budget, there are in-kind contributions as noted from the Forest Service and private timber companies. We didn't highlight those the first time through the process.
If Condit Dam is removed, would the focus be on anadromous fish? Answer: Watershed restoration will still benefit both. The screening will be for resident fish too.
Is the focus recovery of salmon and steelhead stocks? Answer: Even if fish passage is provided at Condit Dam, anadromous fish still can't get past the falls.
Screening Criteria: No. The project does not meet a specific Council Program measure.
Technical Criteria: Yes. This project should coordinate with 9033, 9156 and 9095.
Programmatic Criteria: No. The project addresses mostly non - federal hydro impacts. BPA ratepayers are not responsible.
General Comment: There is an anadromous fish component to this project.
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee CommentsComment:
Reviewers praised it as "a very well-done proposal with exciting possibilities for real accomplishments in watershed enhancement and restoration." The plan involves ground-level actions of real substance, advancing this well beyond the planning phase of most other watershed council projects. ISRP reviewers consider tasks and objectives well done, well matched and well integrated across disciplines and within the local community. The proposal has cost-sharing and collaboration elements with other Federal, tribal and local entities. In their critique, reviewers said the proposal could set forth a more systematic plan with expanded detail. Among other things, they asked what the proponents may be able to learn from other watershed councils regarding organization. Is there a structure for the land stewardship plan? Who will absorb the costs of road decommissioning, fence building, diversion screens and materials? Nonetheless, the proposal is well regarded.