FY 2000 proposal 199802800

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
199802800 Narrative	Narrative
199802800 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project Multi Year Funding Proposal
Proposal ID	199802800
Organization	Jefferson County Soil & Water Conservation District (Jefferson Co. SWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Marie Horn
Mailing address	625 SE Salmon Ave., Suite 6 Redmond, OR 97756
Phone / email	5419238018 / Marie-Horn@or.nacdnet.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Deschutes
Short description	Implementation of practices that will enhance smolt production and habitat recovery. A Coordinator to work with the watershed Council and local landowners to develop a Long Range Plan and strategies for implementation.
Target species	Summer steelhead, redband trout

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
1995	Published Assessment of Trout Creek
1998	Installed two infiltration Galleries to address hindered fish passage
1999	Funds for two infiltration galleries in lower Trout Creek
1999	NRCS has declared the watershed a Geographical Priority Area for EQIP funds
1999	Funds for streambank stabilization

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9304000	Fifteenmile Cr.habitat restoration	Share equipment and manpower
	Corps of Engineers	Berm removal
9306600	Oregon Screens
9900600	Bakeoven Riparian Assessment
9303000	Buckhollow watershed restoration

9405420	Bull Trout studies

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost
Personnel	The next three amounts include Long Range planning and Project coordination and implementation	$84,000
Fringe	overhead and personnel costs-10% of budget	$10,965
Supplies	10 milesfencing, 5280 ft. riparian improvement, 300 acres brush control, 2-3 retention basins,	$109,000
NEPA		$10,000
Construction	streambed reestablishment,	$220,000
Travel	Planning and implementation	$10,000
Indirect	3% of budget	$14,180
Subcontractor	Wasco SWCD/Planning/Technical support	$10,650
Subcontractor	ODFW Planning/Technical support	$15,000
		$483,795

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$483,795
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$483,795
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Conservation Resource Program	Resting of erodible soils in the baisn	$300,000	unknown
NRCS	EQIP	$100,000	unknown
USFS	new culverts and road obliteration	$320,000	unknown
Farm Service Agency	Riparian Buffer Rental program(CREP)	$85,000	unknown
Corps of Engineers	Stream restoration and berm removal	$309,000	unknown
GWEB	Stream restoration & match funds for COE project	$152,000	unknown
BPA	Trout Creek Improvement & match funds for COE Project	$464,400	unknown
NRCS	Engineering and Farm plans	$75,000	unknown
ODFW	NMFS fish screening and passage	$150,000	unknown
Landowners	in kind services	$25,000	unknown
Jefferson County	Bridge and stream bank repair	$75,000	unknown

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None foreseen

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund, technically inadequate. The authors still have not addressed shortcomings identified in FY99 ISRP review.

Comments: There is insufficient detail to biologically justify this proposal. It does not appear that an adequate assessment has been performed to document the extent of the habitat problem these measures address, nor is there evidence that previous restoration efforts have produced significant improvements that directly benefit fish and wildlife. The proposed activities are not placed in the context of limiting factors in the watershed. Although references are given, they are general in nature; too few apply to Trout Creek. Methods are not described in sufficient detail. For example, the proposal calls for 300 acres of brush control: how will this occur, where, out of how many acres that "need" this treatment, etc.? The methods for Objective 3 are uncertain. How will these objectives be achieved? This proposal shares text with 9404200, but no coordination is described between the two. The abstract should be edited and abbreviated, and the budget better justified and described. The completion date is listed as August 2001, yet out year budget costs continue to increase through 2004.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Cut WS coordinator & technician to 1/2; eliminate other personnel $; emphasize upland treatment & riparian fencing. No funding for sediment retention basins;$1000 for riparian reveg.; $107 K for stream channel restoration.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Not well connected to umbrella project 20511.

Provide more detail about the projects and the expected biological response.

Show the link to project 9404200.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. However, the response presents a substantially different proposal than the proposal originally submitted for FY 2000 funding. The response was written by a new watershed coordinator who came on board after the original proposal was reviewed by the ISRP. Details on what is known and what actually would be completed with the FY2000 and FY2001 funds are still sketchy, but that may be expected given the recent changes in this program; progress, however, seems quite promising.

The response is a step in the right direction in that it stresses the need for a comprehensive watershed assessment and long-term restoration plan; however, the current knowledge of limiting factors within the Trout Creek system appears to still be fairly incomplete. The general sequence of steps is good. But this proposal should be completely re-written from the ground up and re-submitted for complete evaluation in the Council's proposed ecological province review. For example, results of the EDT analysis should be summarized in order for the ISRP to make an informed judgment. It is not sufficient simply to say that an EDT analysis has been done. Likewise, it was not clear from the response how the results from the 1983 habitat survey will be used, or other surveys by other agencies.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$130,560	$130,560	$130,560

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website