FY 2000 proposal 20018

Additional documents

TitleType
20018 Narrative Narrative
20018 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleTucannon River and Asotin Creek Riparian Enhancement
Proposal ID20018
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSteve Martin
Mailing address401 S. Cottonwood Dayton, WA 99328
Phone / email5093821710 / martiny@wwics.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Tucannon
Short descriptionRiparian Enhancement of the Tucannon River and Asotin Creek at Sites Unqualified for other Publically Funded Salmonid Habitat Restoration Efforts.
Target speciesSnake River Chinook Salmon (Onchorynchus tshawtscha) Snake River Steelhead Trout (Onchorynchus mykiss) Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Steelhead Production potentially affecting mortality of wild Snake River steelhead
9401806 Tucannon Model Watershed Program Developing aquatic restoration projects on private land. In conjunction, this project proposes to enhance the riparian area on private land where other public funded restoration efforts are ineligible.
940185 Asotin Creek Model Watershed Program Developing aquatic restoration projects on private land. In conjunction, this project proposes to enhance the riparian area on private land where other public funded restoration efforts are ineligible.
WY-KAN-USH-MI-WA-KISH-WIT: The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Hatchery Steelhead Production potentially affecting mortality of wild Snake River steelhead.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel One full-time Technician 4, and 0.1 FTE project supervisor $37,507
Fringe 28.5% of Personnel Costs $10,689
Supplies Biodegradable pots, compost soil, hardware cloth, lumber, clippers, flagging, waders, etc $15,092
Operating Vehicle mileage and equipment repairs $7,254
Capital Truck with dump bed, small tractor with back hoe, dump trailer, and a hand held gas powered auger. $46,234
Travel meetings, seminars, and presentations $1,145
Indirect 22.5% (excludes capitol equipment) $16,130
$134,051
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$134,051
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$134,051
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
WDFW Native vegetation nursery and building structures to use as nursery location $20,000 unknown
Columbia Conservation District Consultation, site reviews and landowner solicitations $2,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Stream flooding in March will prevent us from establishing the spring “water line” from which we determine the riparian woody species elevation to plant.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund; encourage resubmission following comprehensive review of restoration programs within the Tucannon basin, and demonstration of biological benefits.

Comments: This is a new proposal to supplement already implemented projects (by Asotin County, Pomeroy, and Columbia Conservation Districts) to improve stream habitat within the Tucannon River Basin. Funds would be used for restoration efforts at sites not eligible for funding under other projects – i.e., where landowner cost sharing is required. Funds would be used primarily for restoration of riparian vegetation to help reduce water temperatures.

This project appears driven more by programmatic opportunities and constraints, than by scientific necessity. It badly needs a review to determine overall objectives, what measures are most appropriate to achieving them, and how funding should be allocated to assure the greatest return in terms of habitat. This is not achievable within the framework of an annual reviews of an ongoing project. It may well be that some funding from other ongoing activities would be better allocated to the sites and measures identified in this proposal. However, information is not at hand to make such a judgment, and the only responsible action at this point is to decline to fund this activity until a comprehensive review of all of Tucannon River projects is completed. This will require a site visit by an independent panel, equipped with adequate background information to allow it to provide a sound assessment of progress and viability of the project(s).

CBFWA's technical evaluation was that "The project proposes using BPA funds for private landowners wishing to avoid restrictive conditions associated with alternative funding sources (page 8). Monitoring plan needs more detail. Not enough detail in the methods (width of setback, number of trees, stream distance protected)." Reviewers agree that the proposal does not warrant approval at this time and should rather await re-submittal with more clearly defined objectives and with assurance that the project will be of benefit to fish and wildlife.'


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

The project proposes using BPA funds for private landowners wishing to avoid restrictive conditions associated with alternative funding sources (page 8).

Monitoring plan needs more detail.

Not enough detail in the methods (width of setback, number of trees, stream distance protected).

This is a good example of non-structural restoration activities.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];