FY07-09 proposal 200736700
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Klickitat and Rock Creek Subbasin Habitat Improvement Program |
| Proposal ID | 200736700 |
| Organization | Klickitat County |
| Short description | The proposal funds a program that encompasses areas within Klickitat County that are addressed in the Klickitat and Lower Middle Columbia Subbasin Plans. The program will address key habitat issues throughout the area. |
| Information transfer | All data collected under this program will be publically availalbe. Metadata will be provided with all data. Reports will be available in .pdf format. Transfer of reports and data will be digital (available on the web or on disk). Limited copies of reports (25 each) will be available for distribution. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| David McClure | Klickitat County | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Gorge / Klickitat
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Klickitat subbasin downstream of Yakama Indian Reservation | |||
| Rock Creek | Rock Creek Basin |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESUsecondary: Chinook Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluate Habitat Conditions&Anthropogenic Effects | The Klickitat and Lower Mid-Columbia Subbasin Plans identify several strategies/objectives that address sediment inputs to streams, riparian conditions, and large woody debris inputs. In some cases, the strategies/objectives specified studies that needed to be conducted. In other cases, additional study was not directly specified, but is nevertheless necessary to identify site-specific locations where actions need to be taken. This project seeks to develop the information required to identify priority locations for implementation of projects that address sediment inputs, riparian condition, and large woody debris recruitment. | Klickitat | Study and assess sources/attribute relative contributions of sediment load; Implement road management actions that reduce sediment inputs; Compare to 1860s GLO maps, restore physical and riparian Characteristics; Re-establish and/or enhance native veg |
| Passage at Little Klickitat Falls | The frequency that flow conditions exist that allow passage over the 16-foot falls on the Little Klickitat River is unknown and thought to occur only during high flow events. Work performed under this objective is focused on gaining an understanding of the passage frequency. Specific objectives are to identify the range of flows where passage may be possible and to identify the frequency that those flows occur during periods of upstream migration. Results will be evaluated relative to historical flow patterns and will be presented in terms of the number of years where passage may have been possible and the number of days in each year that passage may have occurred. The evaluation will be validated by monitoring upstream movement of above the falls. The preferred option for monitoring passage will be identified in the first year of funding. Testing of options and engineering design of the monitoring facility will be completed during the second year of funding. Construction will be completed in 2009 and testing and monitoring will be initiated in 2010. | Klickitat | Conduct comprehensive study of fish passage window at Little Klickitat falls utilization by steelhead |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | Coordination | Coordination with existing stakeholder groups was described under Public Outreach, Education, and Involvement. The coordination element will also include coordination with BPA, the NWPCC, pertinent agencies (WDFW, WDOE, NMFS). | 1/7/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Identify and Select Projects | LWD Inputs Assessment | Assess current riparian vegetation characteristics in areas not previously evaluated using GIS methods with field verification. Identify areas with poor riparian vegetation and evaluate the potential to increase vegetation in those areas. Prioritize projects based on expected benefit to fish, expected success fo project, and expected longevity. Evaluate opportunities to artificially place wood in streams. | 3/15/2007 | 6/30/2008 | $175,000 |
|
Biological objectives Evaluate Habitat Conditions&Anthropogenic Effects |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Management | This work element will include coordination of on-the-ground efforts, management of subcontractors, project administration, budget tracking, support of BPA’s programmatic requirements, and other project management duties. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Management and project coordination | Management includes coordination of contractors, coordination with landowners, coordination with existing stakeholder groups, review of documents, meetings, interim reports | 1/5/2007 | 12/30/2008 | $60,000 |
|
Biological objectives Evaluate Habitat Conditions&Anthropogenic Effects |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Public outreach, education, and involvement | Public outreach is critical to the success of this program. Most of the actions will require landowner approval and cooperation. Hence, public support is for the program is highly important. Annual public meetings will be held to update interested parties regarding program accomplishments and program plans. Project specifications will be developed in coordination with existing state and local government and stakeholder groups (i.e. WRIA 30 and 31 Planning Units). Planning Units will also be requested to comment on draft reports. These efforts will help provide public credibility in the program. | 1/7/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $7,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics * # of general public reached: public reached and other measures |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Complete detailed feasibility analysis | Feasibility analysis will include evaluation of the engineering feasibility, the potential for harm to fish, the expected resolution of equipment, expected error in estimates, and cost. The feasibility assessment may include testing of equipment in a trial setting if photographic, sonar, acoustic, or velocimeter options are selected for analysis. More than one approach will likely be tested to determine which is most effective in the setting. | 8/15/2007 | 6/1/2008 | $18,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Evaluate options for monitoring upstream passage | Options for monitoring passage may include construction of weirs upstream of the falls, side scan sonar, video monitoring, infrared fish counters, use of a Doppler Velocimeter, and other options. Each of these options has limitations when applied at the site. The selected option(s) will have to perform at high velocities in winter. A combination of approaches may be determined to provide the greatest confidence in results. | 6/1/2007 | 8/15/2007 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Estimate Likelihood of Passage as a Function of Stream Flow | The hydraulic characteristics of the stream and waterfall will be compared to the range of swimming and leaping capabilities reported in the literature. This analysis will determine the frequencies and limits of fish passage over the waterfall at various flood frequency flows. Based on the above analysis, the range of flows where fish passage becomes possible will be determined. | 7/1/2008 | 8/1/2008 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Fine Sediment Inventory | Evaluate fine sediment concentrations in substrates. Identify areas with fine sediment levels that are high enought to affect fish production. Evaluate sediment inputs to streams from individual road segments, grazing, and agricultural areas. Identify site-specific locations where anthropogenic activities result in the greatest sediment inputs to sediment impacted streams. Develop a plan to address identified priority areas for sediment reduction. | 2/25/2007 | 12/20/2007 | $400,000 |
|
Biological objectives Evaluate Habitat Conditions&Anthropogenic Effects |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Historic channel and flow conditions | The Government Land Office (GLO) survey notes of the late 1800s have been reviewed for the lower Rock Creek basin (Aspect and WPN 2004) and Swale Creek (WPN and Aspect 2005). These notes have been found to be very useful in determining the extent that current conditions reflect pre-development conditions, specifically in relation to channel condition and flow. The notes also provide some insight into vegetation. The GLO notes will be reviewed for areas in Rock Creek that were not previously completed and for the Little Klickitat River basin, the Lower Mainstem Klickitat River, and the larger mainstem tributaries (Dillacort Canyon, Beeks Canyon, Dead Canyon, Wheeler Canyon, Snyder Canyon). Information contained in the notes regarding stream and channel conditions will be documented and transferred to GIS maps. | 2/1/2007 | 6/1/2007 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Evaluate Habitat Conditions&Anthropogenic Effects |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Hydraulic modeling and analysis | Develop a hydraulic model from the survey data. It is anticipated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) HEC-RAS computer model will be used in this effort. This model will analyze the waterfall and creek for the various discharges. This model will facilitate the determination of the creek’s hydraulic characteristics (water elevations, velocities, jump heights, etc.). It should be understood that the model’s analysis of the waterfall itself would be approximate; bracketing an appropriate rage of hydraulic characteristics. | 5/1/2008 | 7/1/2008 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Hydrologic analysis | Utilizing available stream gage data, calculate the range of discharges and return frequencies (2-yr, 5-yr, 10-yr, 25-yr, 50 yr, 75-yr, and 100-yr return intervals) during the time interval that steelhead are present and moving upstream. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $7,000 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Topographic survey of falls | Observe and record hydraulic friction values; bed, bank, and floodplain features; flow patterns; material sizes; and vegetation. Inspect and record any evidence of headcutting, degradation, aggradation, or possible confounding situations upstream and downstream. Perform a topographic survey of the waterfall and creek. Approximately 3 creek cross-sections will be required upstream of the falls and at least 5 cross-section will be required downstream of the falls. Additionally, cross-sections of the waterfall itself will be made. Measure discharge at 3 flows across transects at the falls and upstream and downstream of falls. | 5/1/2007 | 5/1/2008 | $12,500 |
|
Biological objectives Passage at Little Klickitat Falls |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Fine Sediment Mitigation Plan | Produce plan to reduce sediment inputs to high priority areas based on assessment of site-specific sediment inputs. Include coordination with landowners. | 1/15/2008 | 3/15/2008 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives Evaluate Habitat Conditions&Anthropogenic Effects |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | LWD Mitigation Plan | Produce plan to address identified priority projects for improving riparian condition and instream wood. Include coordination with landowners. | 7/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives Evaluate Habitat Conditions&Anthropogenic Effects |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Provide Tecnical Review | Study plans (including QA/QC requirements) will be developed for all work elements involving data collection. These study plans will be reviewed by the WRIA Planning Units. Annual reports and publications will be developed in draft and provided to the Planning Units for review | 4/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Reporting | Annual reports will include details of accomplishments for each work element, including progress relative to schedule, problems encountered and solutions implemented, and deliverables completed. Annual reports will also summarize data collected, findings of investigations, project prioritization, summaries of feasibility analyses, and an overview of design operations. Study results will be provided in a technical report format. Draft or final documents will be attached or, if previously delivered to BPA, referenced in the annual report. Monitoring results will also be provided with the annual reports. In addition to the annual reports and Pisces status reports, status reports will be developed as requested by BPA Reports of all studies in this program will include descriptions of the hypotheses tested, data collection methods used (including QA/QC procedures), summaries of data collected, methods of data analysis, assumptions, summaries of analysis results, conclusions of studies, and references. Reports of implemented projects will include details of location, specifics regarding restoration actions, problems encountered, and final outcome of project. Costs of reports were included under the various work elements. Costs reported here include reproduction, mailings, and submittals of documents Status of projects relative to milestones and deliverables will be developed quarterly and submitted to BPA. | 3/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $60,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Includes subcontractors; Costs after FY 2008 will be determined on completion of project | $517,500 | $209,000 | $0 |
| Fringe Benefits | includes subcontractors | $60,000 | $18,000 | $0 |
| Supplies | Estimates only, precise costs will be developed during project planning | $10,000 | $5,000 | $0 |
| Travel | Estimates only, subject to change as scope of work is refined | $15,000 | $10,000 | $0 |
| Totals | $602,500 | $242,000 | $0 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $844,500 |
| Total work element budget: | $844,500 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 2009
Comments: Monitoring will continue into the future. Funds for monitoring will be requested in the next funding cycle.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| july 2006 narrative.doc | Jul 2006 |
| Response to comments Klickitat county.doc | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The proposal was inadequately presented. Justification for the $5M requested needs to be more carefully made before this project can meet the ISRP review criteria. As written, with exception of Little Klickitat falls study, this is a generic proposal that could fit (or really, not fit) almost any catchment in the arid portion of Columbia system. It is not specific to the Klickitat, Little Klickitat, or Rock creek. It mentions that a few habitat surveys have been done but ignores their results. It shows inadequate understanding of existing habitat, fish and wildlife, and potential for restoration/enhancement. The ISRP notes that some of the road relocation/sediment reduction strategies in the County could be beneficial to the fish and wildlife resources. However, the proposal does not adequately demonstrate the priority of these strategies or the actual benefits to fish and wildlife. A large portion of the proposal is to determine if steelhead pass Little Klickitat Falls. Proposal readability suffers greatly from having 34 pages of objectives and methods in tabular form. The proposal would be improved by a clearer separation of the watershed assessment and fish passage/monitoring components. Portions of the proposal appear redundant with assessments done in Lower Klickitat by the Yakama Nation. The proposal does not provide evidence of collaboration with the Yakama Nation. There is major expenditure associated with reducing the sediment input from roads. The ISRP is concerned over the following quote from the proposal summary Work Elements section: “Traffic is the number one factor affecting sediment inputs to streams; hence, little used roads are seldom major contributors of sediment.” The concern is that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that could affect any road system assessment. Sediment input to streams is caused by poorly designed and maintained roads, especially their drainage ditches and culverts, whatever the frequency of use. Klickitat County raises a potential issue concerning public availability of data collected with BPA funds that deserves the Council's inquiry: “The Klickitat Management Plan emphasizes the need for quality control and requires that all data collected in support of the program be available to the public. Data collected in the past using BPA funds have been treated as proprietary in most cases. Hence, that data is not available to support public policy, public decisions regarding habitat improvement, and/or habitat protection.”
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The responses do little to diminish the ISRP concerns, in some cases avoiding the concerns entirely. The proposal and response are inadequate. The ISRP maintains its preliminary recommendation of "Not fundable." ISRP's preliminary comments (June 2006): The proposal was inadequately presented. Justification for the $5M requested needs to be more carefully made before this project can meet the ISRP review criteria. As written, with exception of Little Klickitat falls study, this is a generic proposal that could fit (or really, not fit) almost any catchment in the arid portion of Columbia system. It is not specific to the Klickitat, Little Klickitat, or Rock creek. It mentions that a few habitat surveys have been done but ignores their results. It shows inadequate understanding of existing habitat, fish and wildlife, and potential for restoration/enhancement. The ISRP notes that some of the road relocation/sediment reduction strategies in the County could be beneficial to the fish and wildlife resources. However, the proposal does not adequately demonstrate the priority of these strategies or the actual benefits to fish and wildlife. A large portion of the proposal is to determine if steelhead pass Little Klickitat Falls. Proposal readability suffers greatly from having 34 pages of objectives and methods in tabular form. The proposal would be improved by a clearer separation of the watershed assessment and fish passage/monitoring components. Portions of the proposal appear redundant with assessments done in Lower Klickitat by the Yakama Nation. The proposal does not provide evidence of collaboration with the Yakama Nation. There is major expenditure associated with reducing the sediment input from roads. The ISRP is concerned over the following quote from the proposal summary Work Elements section: “Traffic is the number one factor affecting sediment inputs to streams; hence, little used roads are seldom major contributors of sediment.” The concern is that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that could affect any road system assessment. Sediment input to streams is caused by poorly designed and maintained roads, especially their drainage ditches and culverts, whatever the frequency of use. Klickitat County raises a potential issue concerning public availability of data collected with BPA funds that deserves the Council's inquiry: “The Klickitat Management Plan emphasizes the need for quality control and requires that all data collected in support of the program be available to the public. Data collected in the past using BPA funds have been treated as proprietary in most cases. Hence, that data is not available to support public policy, public decisions regarding habitat improvement, and/or habitat protection.”