FY 1999 proposal 9156

Additional documents

9156 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleWhite Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Project
Proposal ID9156
OrganizationWhite Salmon River Watershed Management Committee "WMC". WMC is coordinated by Underwood Conservation District (UCD). (UCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSteve Stampfli
Mailing addressP.O. Box 96 White Salmon, WA 98672
Phone / email5094931936 / steve@linkport.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Little White Salmon
Short descriptionA 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
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments


Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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
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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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


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.

Not fundable
May 13, 1998


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.


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.

Do Not Fund
May 13, 1998


See CBFWA Committee Comments
Jun 18, 1998


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.