FY 2000 proposal 199801900

Additional documents

199801900 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleWind River Watershed Restoration
Proposal ID199801900
OrganizationUnderwood Conservation District (contact agency), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (UCD/USFS/USGS/WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSteve Stampfli, Underwood Conservation District
Mailing addressP.O. Box 96 White Salmon, WA 98672
Phone / email5094931936 / steve@linkport.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Gorge / Wind
Short descriptionRestore habitat within the Wind River subbasin to support healthy populations of wild steelhead and salmon.
Target speciesSummer run steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1998 (Coordination) Facilitated monthly meetings of the Wind River Action Committee (AC) to develop a common mission and goals of watershed stakeholders.
1998 (Coordination) Facilitated meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee to provide technical support to the AC and design restoration projects.
1998 (Monitoring) Monitored juvenile steelhead populations.
1998 (Monitoring) Monitored steelhead smolts.
1998 (Monitoring) Monitored steelhead adults.
1998 (Monitoring) Evaluated spawning gravel composition in the Wind River watershed.
1998 (Assessment)
1998 (Restoration) Restored 1500 linear feet of degraded stream at Stabler Cut Bank Project.
1998 (Restoration) Decommissioned 4.4 miles of road in Dry Creek basin
1998 (Education) Formed Stevenson High School stream monitoring program
1998 (Education) Supported Wind River Middle School's environmental education program.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

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 $365,575
Fringe $98,547
Supplies $67,070
Operating Maintenance and repair of smolt traps and adult ladder $3,000
Capital Smolt trap, adult trap $36,000
NEPA For operations under OBJ-4 a,b $23,500
PIT tags 1,500 $4,350
Travel $22,327
Indirect $145,381
Other $1,800
Subcontractor USGS-WRD to maintain gauges (OBJ-2f) $25,121
Subcontractor Water quality analysis lab work (OBJ-2g) $3,800
Subcontractor Road decommissioning operations (OBJ-4a) $93,653
Subcontractor LWD placement (OBJ-4b) $193,663
Subcontractor Riparian planting (OBJ-4c) $52,625
Subcontractor Water quality analysis lab work (OBJ-4d) $10,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$1,146,412
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$1,146,412
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Habitat restoration projects in lower Wind River basin $49,300 unknown
USFS Habitat restoration projects in upper Wind River basin $160,000 unknown
USFS Monitoring physical and biological stream components $30,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Stream restoration work that entails moving or adding materials will be contingent on successful obtainment of state, county, and federal permits. Fish monitoring work will be contingent on obtaining collection permits from state and federal agencies.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fund in part
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Fund in part. Objectives 1, 3, and 5 should be supported, followed by objective 2. Objective 4 should follow completion of objective 3. Unless the prioritized plan (objective 3) is completed funding should not exceed FY99 funding level. Complete the watershed assessment before funding any implementation.

Comments: This was a very broad project with many different aspects. It was good to see such a comprehensive attempt to deal with a number of watershed issues. The high school monitoring program can be a good approach. However, there was not a very clear explanation of the biological justification for both previously funded and proposed projects. The objectives were stated fairly clearly, but their relative importance and level of needed funding was not argued all that effectively. There was a heavy dose of buzzwords and rhetoric, but actual substance was quite lean. It appeared that the Forest Service's watershed analysis was responsible for identifying the roads to be decommissioned and the section of stream for LWD placement, but what process was used to identify this year's projects? Were they identified by the Technical Advisory Committee, and if so, what was the process and the basis for assuming they would benefit steelhead? More details need to be provided on the make-up of and methods used by the Technical Advisory committee. What are their criteria for selecting and prioritizing projects?

Linkage to other projects was not at all clear. Progress to date, given two years of not insignificant funding, was very hard to visualize. The proposed budget is not justified. Prioritization of objectives would seem to be necessary. At several points in the proposal, the authors state the importance of full funding and the fact that only 39% and 52% of requested funding was received during the first 2 years of the project. It is unclear what is/was lost by this reduction in funding. Instead of using the appropriated monies to actually meet a reduced set of objectives under that new level of funding, the authors seem to have accomplished very little and have used the reduced funding as an excuse to explain lack of any progress. Much of the money in this budget goes for salaries and indirect costs, but the proposers do not specify what will happen (i.e., what project elements will be dropped) if the project is not fully funded.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


We question the high proportion of BPA funding for mitigating impacts of Forest Service activities in this basin. A well defined game plan has not been clearly stated. Specific causal mechanisms have not been clearly defined for the detrimental affects on salmon. It is not clear that the project is following results from the watershed assessment referenced in their proposal. The Wind River represents an important area that can be studied with results pertaining to several other river systems. There is also an ESA listed species in the basin and funding should be continued at some level. We concur with Watershed TWG comments. Justification for the expansion of this project has not been well documented. We recommend focusing on Objectives 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and particularly 3b and funding only these objectives.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


Project does not appear to be well thought out. The WTWG assumes that the assessment phase is occurring now and hopes the assessment will be completed in the outyears. However, the projects seem to come before the assessment.

Clearly describe links between sampling/watershed analysis and restoration.

Considerable concern about whether the project will produce substantive benefit to fish and wildlife

High cost, mostly personnel. Extensive funding of federal employees.

Oct 29, 1999


Fund. Overall, the project managers provided adequate responses to ISRP questions and concerns.

It would have been helpful to include, somewhere in the justification, more specific explanations of proposed actions, e.g., "we gave this activity a high priority because it would improve habitat in a reach of 'stream x' that is known to support approximately 'y %' of the adult summer steelhead spawning in the Wind River system, and this restoration project is estimated to improve survival to emergence of steelhead eggs by about 'z %'". Quantitative information of this type is usually lacking, but some justification will help us to see how the analytical process and priority ranking occurred. It was very helpful to see the Project Prioritization Checklist (A-4) and Project Proposal Form (Appendix B), but it would have been reassuring to see that projects were sited and prioritized based on best available information. The Project managers do not seem to want to deal with the prioritization question except to say they will handle it.

Since the USFS 1996 Wind River Watershed Analysis was apparently used extensively in the project selection process, it would have been useful to the ISRP to know what the main conclusions of this assessment were. If the highest priority areas were in lower Trout Creek, wouldn't this area have been off Forest Service land? If so, how was the Watershed Analysis used in them? Also, it was not fully clear from the response how the steelhead smolt data were used on the project identification process.

Progress in the future needs to be monitored closely and subsequent proposals need to document that progress and how the projects all fit together to meet watershed goals. The ISRP expects that these concerns be addressed in the Council's proposed ecological province review.

Nov 8, 1999


Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$659,452 $659,452 $659,452

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website