FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 21014

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
21014 Narrative	Narrative
Letter from R. Graves (Wasco County SWCD) to E. Bloch and J. Brogoitti (NPCC) RE: Prioritization for project 21014, Fifteenmile Bioengineering	Correspondence
Letter from R. Graves (Wasco County SWCD) to T. Giese (CBFWA) RE: FY 2002 Funding for Project 21014	Correspondence
Letter from R. French (ODFW) to Interested Parties RE: Recommendation for funding of project 21014 in FY 2002	Correspondence

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Mitigate Streambank Sediment Sources in Fifteenmile Watershed using Bioengineering Techniques
Proposal ID	21014
Organization	Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (Wasco SWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ron Graves
Mailing address	2325 River Road, Suite 3 The Dalles, OR 97058
Phone / email	5412966178 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Ron Graves
Review cycle	Columbia Gorge
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Gorge / Fifteenmile
Short description	Treat seven sites of active streambank erosion using bioengineering techniques that promote revegetation of banks, dissipates hydrologic energy and create instream habitat.
Target species	Salmonids (winter steelhead, spring chinook), Pacific Lamprey and resident redband trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.623	-121.0131	Diamond K
45.62	-120.99	Markman
45.51	-121.03	Wrentham
45.44	-121.1	Dry Creek

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
2000	Two Rivers No-till Direct Seeding Demo; implemented 900 acres of no-till in White River watershed
2000	Fifteenmile Watershed Project:272 ac. strip system, 62 sediment basins, 11624 ft. terraces, 4977 ac. no-till, 6 ac. irrig. impr.
1999	Fifteenmile Watershed Project; Wrapped up 3 year. FEMA hazard mitigation program geared to control runoff and erosion
1998	Fifteenmile Watershed Project; 620 ac. strip systems, 65 sed. basins, 31,381 ft. terraces, 501 acres no-till
1997	Fifteenmile Watershed Project; formed watershed council, developed watershed action plan, began implementation
1997	Fifteenmile Bioengineering Demo.; stabilized headcut and 717 ft. of bank with biodegradable geotextile, soil, plants
1996	Emergency Watershed Protection; completed 43 restoration projects following February 1996 flood.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199304000	Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project	Complimentary projects. Restoration project implements fencing and off stream water developments but includes no active bank restoration. This project addresses site specific sediment sources.
199304001	15-Mile Creek Steelhead Smolt Production	Complimentary projects
	Mid-Columbia Riparian Buffers	Complimentary projects. This project addresses site specific sediment problems, while Buffer project extends work begun by ODFW, enrolling stream reaches in the CREP program.
	Accelerate the Application of Integrated Pest Management to Reduce the Risk of Pesticide Pollution in Wasco County Orchards in Fifteenmile Watershed	Complimentary projects - this proposal focuses on stream/riparian restoration, while the referenced proposal works on upland sources of pollution.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost
1.Prepare for implementation	a. prepare/obtain landowner agreements	2	$800
	b. develop detailed engineering drawings and specifications	2	$4,290
	c. apply for permits	2	$702
	d. NEPA consultation	2	$1,560
	e. Cultural resources survey	2	$663
	f. Develop contract bid packages	2	$2,925
	g. contract reviews	2	$780
	h. conduct site showings	2	$546
	i. award contracts	2	$312

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2002
$4,166

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor
2. Stabilize and revegetate 1800 feet of actively eroding streambank in Lower Fifteenmile Creek and Dry Creek.	a. Deflect flow from 1350 ft of bank in six locations using 14 upstream barbs and 1deflector. Shape banks, install toe rock, and biodegradable fabric lifts, seed 725 feet of streambank in 2 separate locations.	2	$136,649	Yes
	b. Seed disturbed areas and plant 1965 feet of streambank with willows or other locally-adapted tree species.	2	$850
	c. Install 1350 feet of fencing in 4 locations and 750 ft. in 2 locations	3	$3,818	Yes
	d. monitor construction while in progress; conduct final inspection for acceptance.	2	$3,198
3. Enhance instream structure in 14 locations.	Install 14 upstream barbs to absorb and redirect stream energy, and to gather sediment and seed source for riparian vegetation (see task 4b);	2	$0	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2002	FY 2003
$33,033	$3,455

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor
4. Maintain sites for at least 10 years	a. prior to implementation, landowners sign agreement accepting all maintenance responsibility for 10 years.	3	$0

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 2001 cost
5. Monitor recovery.	a. establish photo points and conduct semiannual photo monitoring.	5	$156
	b. evaluate vegetation recovery and effectiveness of site treatments	5	$156
6. Submit required reports	a. develop and submit annual project report and final report	3	$1,950

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$1,950	$975	$312	$312

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: 0.5	$15,735
Fringe	all other personnel expenses est. at 30% salary	$4,721
Supplies	plant materials	$850
NEPA	(included as 0.3 man month in personnel)	$0
Subcontractor	bioengineering practices contracted by SWCD	$136,649
Subcontractor	fencing	$1,400
		$159,355

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$159,355
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$159,355
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

no previous budget

Reason for change in scope

no previous proposal

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
landowners	25% cost-share on implementation	$34,000	cash
NRCS	design engineering	$3,200	in-kind
ODFW	technical consultation	$3,200	in-kind
SWCD	admin	$3,000	in-kind
Volunteer groups	planting labor	$2,000	in-kind

Other budget explanation

Fencing may be contracted by the landowner. The SWCD will then reimburse landowners for 75% of their expenses. Instream barbs, bank shaping, and placement of fabric lifts, will be contracted by the SWCD. Willows will be planted by SWCD personnel with the assistance of volunteer groups. Photomonitoring will be acomplished by SWCD personnel.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2000-8)

Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required

Date:
Oct 6, 2000

Comment:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. Roll up into an overall watershed restoration plan. Past success with this approach in the watershed was evident from the site visit. This is costly work thus there is a need to ensure the habitat is protected from future bank erosion. Do salmonids use these areas for spawning and rearing? Areas visited did not appear to be prime rearing habitat. Proponents have been active at this and other tasks in the watershed (fencing, etc.). Some indication that major sediment sources are being addressed is required - has there been a sediment source analysis and is this the key source? Perhaps some level of monitoring success at achieving reduced erosion and sedimentation by a sub-sampling scheme (sediment traps?) could be considered. Done right, the bank erosion work in this watershed could provide demonstration of the techniques and benefits for other subbasins in the area with similar plans.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

This project exemplifies the patchwork criticism from the ISRP. The work is based on opportunities by cooperative landowners and not by a prioritized method of implementation. This project should wait for a comprehensive habitat assessment. The cost per mile for this type of work is very high without a major contribution to the stream for fish and wildlife. There are other techniques that could be used at this site that would cost less and provide greater benefits to the fish. We would like to see a more explicit plan for disseminating the information to other farmers and ranchers to encourage more landowner participation in projects like this. Some of the sites identified in the proposal do address current fish and wildlife management priorities. Other sites within the proposal would not rank as high priorities within the Fifteenmile subbasin. It would be interesting for the project sponsors to provide alternate techniques that may focus on benefits for fish, with a monitoring plan to measure benefits of the various restoration techniques.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2000-9)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 1, 2000

Comment:

Fundable. Roll up into an overall watershed restoration plan. Past success with this approach in the watershed was evident from the site visit. This is costly work thus there is a need to ensure the habitat is protected from future bank erosion. Do salmonids use these areas for spawning and rearing? Areas visited did not appear to be prime rearing habitat. Proponents have been active at this and other tasks in the watershed (fencing, etc.). Some indication that major sediment sources are being addressed is required - has there been a sediment source analysis and is this the key source? The bank erosion work in this watershed could provide demonstration of the techniques and benefits for other subbasins in the area with similar plans.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Sep 11, 2001

Comment: