FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 198710002

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
Monitoring and Evaluation Budget	Response Attachment
198710002 Narrative	Narrative
198710002 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement
Proposal ID	198710002
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Troy Laws
Mailing address	73471 Mytinger Lane Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone / email	5412762344 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Kevin Blakely
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Umatilla
Short description	Protect and enhance coldwater fish habitat on private lands in the Umatilla River basin in a manner that achieves self-sustaining salmonid populations and their associated habitat by utilizing natural stream functions to the fullest extent.
Target species	Summer Steelhead and Redband Trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Birch and Meacham Creek watersheds
45.59	-118.81	Birch Creek
45.7023	-118.3604	Meacham Creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1988	Constructed 2.01 miles of riparian exclosure to protect 1.13 miles of Birch Creek
1989	Maintained existing projects.
1989	Constructed 3.5 miles of riparian exclosure fence to protect 1.9 miles of Birch Creek, 3.5 miles of fence to protect 1.7 miles of East Birch and 0.9 miles of fence to protect 0.65 miles of Meacham Creek.
1989	Placed 117 instream and streambank stabilization structures along 2.5 miles of Birch Creek and 27 structures along 0.7 miles of East Birch Creek.
1990	Maintained existing projects.
1990	Constructed 3.1 miles of riparian exclosure fence to protect 3.2 miles of Birch Creek.
1990	Placed 21 instream and streambank stabilization structures along 3.2 miles of Birch Creek.
1991	Constructed 0.5 miles of riparian exclosure fence to protect 0.6 miles of Meacham Creek.
1991	Placed 32 trees in Meacham Creek to improve habitat diversity.
1992	Constructed 1.7 miles of riparian exclosure fence to protect 0.94 miles of Twomile Creek (Meacham Creek tributary).
1993	Maintained existing projects.
1994	Maintained existing projects.
1995	Maintained existing projects.
1996	Maintained exisitng projects.
1996	Constructed model bioengineering demonstration project along 0.33 miles of Birch Creek to demonstrate "soft" measures for stabilizing stream banks.
1996	Constructed 0.33 miles of riparian exclosure fence and installed one solar powered livestock watering system to protect 0.33 miles of Birch Creek..
1997	Maintained existing projects and developed project retrofit design for thirteen projects and provided to landonwers.
1998	Maintained existing projects.
1998	Implemented retrofitting of existing projects along 2.5 miles of Birch and East Birch creeks Constructed geomorphically stable channels.
1998	Replaced riparian exclosure fence along 2 miles of Birch and East Birch creeks to widen protected area.
1999	Maintained existing projects.
1999	Competed revegatation efforts along 2.5 miles of retrofitted projects on Birch and East Birch creeks.
2000	Maintained existing projects.
2000	Developed designs for 2001 projects.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
198710001	CTUIR - Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement	Implements fish habitat improvements on reservation lands and on Wildhorse Creek and mainstem Umatilla River.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
5: Communication, education and coordination.	5a: Work with watershed council and other groups to identify and prioritize potential projects.	On-going	$1,225
1: Restore riparian vegetation	1a: Procure lease agreements and/or easements.	On-going	$3,500
1	1b: Plan work and layout and mark specific sites where work is to be implemented.	On-going	$2,500
1	1d: Complete NEPA activities	On-going	$2,500	Yes
2: Create naturally stable channels along geomorphically altered streams	2a: Procure lease agreements and/or easements.	On-going	$3,500
2	2b: Conduct reach assessments and develop designs.	On-going	$20,000
2	2c: Complete NEPA activities	On-going	$7,500	Yes
2	2d: Develop construction contracts and schedules and hire subcontractors.	On-going	$7,500
2	2h: Collect "reference reach" data per Rosgen (1996).	3	$6,000
2	2i: Develop hydraulic geometry relationships per Rosgen (1996)	3	$6,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
5: Communication, education and coordination.	2002	2006	$5,544
1: Restore riparian vegetation	2002	2006	$38,468
2: Create naturally stable channels along geomorphically altered streams	2002	2006	$228,544

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$63,236	$66,398	$69,718	$73,204

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1: Restore riparian vegetation	1c: Conduct surveying and staking activities, prepare contracts and obtain necessary permits	On-going	$15,401
1	1e: Construct four miles of livestock exclusion fencing in the Birch Creek Watershed	On-going	$65,000	Yes
1	1f: Construct three off-site livestock water developments	On-going	$15,000
2: Create naturally stable channels along geomorphically altered streams	2e: Purchase construction materials and supplies	On-going	$155,000
2	2f: Survey and stake work sites	On-going	$10,000
2	2g: Implement work	On-going	$312,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1: Restore riparian vegetation	2002	2006	$429,935
2: Create naturally stable channels along geomorphically altered streams	2002	2006	$2,160,541

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$601,021	$631,093	$662,625	$695,757

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
3: Conduct project operations and maintain fish habitat projects	3a: Inspect and maintain riparian fences	On-going	$15,000
3	3b: Inpsect project for revegation success and replant where necessary	On-going	$12,500
3	3c: Inspect projects for noxious weeds and control where they exist	On-going	$12,500
3	3d: Inspect instream work and maintain where necessary	On-going	$2,500
3	3e: Coordinate maintenance activities with landonwers	On-going	$7,800
5: Communication, education and coordination.	5b: Coordinate field activities with agencies and organizations	On-going	$5,000
5	5c: Make presentations and respond to information requests	On-going	$5,000
5	5d: Educate private landowners	On-going	$10,000
6: Conduct project administrative activities	6a: Liason with BPA, NWPPC and ODFW	On-going	$2,500
6	6b: Maintain program databases and files	On-going	$2,500
6	6c: Hire, train and supervise employees	On-going	$10,000
6	6d: Prepare budgets and workstatements, write reports	On-going	$12,500
6	6e: Seek cost share opportunities	On-going	$5,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
3: Conduct project operations and maintain fish habitat projects	2002	2006	$225,286
5: Communication, education and coordination.	2002	2006	$90,513
6: Conduct project administrative activities	2002	2006	$147,083

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$107,394	$112,763	$118,403	$124,322

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
4: Monitor and evaluate fish habitat projects	4a: Take photopoint pictures	On-going	$5,000
4	4b: Monitor stream temperature	On-going	$7,374
4	4c: Monitor stream channel morphology and vegetation	On-going	$7,500
4	4d: Conduct biological surveys	On-going	$1,500
4	4e: Report results	On-going	$2,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
4: Monitor and evaluate fish habitat projects	2002	2006	$108,045

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$25,068	$26,321	$27,637	$29,019

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1-NRS 2, 1-Tech 2, .83-Tech 1, .66-Laborer 1, .25-SFWB, .08-Clerical Assistant	$116,672
Fringe	39.9 %	$46,552
Supplies		$175,240
Travel		$21,040
Indirect	25 % of Personnel and S & S	$89,876
NEPA		$10,000
Subcontractor		$299,920
		$759,300

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$759,300
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$759,300
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$450,000
% change from forecast	68.7%

Reason for change in estimated budget

We have increased the rate of implementation for natural channel construction projects from one mile per year to two miles per year. This increase is suggested to shorten the length of time it will take to restore habitat and improve the status of "Threatened" middle Columbia Steelhead in the Umatilla subbasin. In addition, the opportunity to improve a contiguous two mile reach of stream now exists, to delay the construction process will delay development and implementation of future projects.

Reason for change in scope

The type of work proposed remians the same

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (seeking)	funding for materials and construction	$225,000	cash

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. The proposal is well-written and the result of careful analysis, good use of published literature, and learning from past experience. There is a good, extensive background and rationale, with many cited references. There is a good emphasis on results in the history section, good objectives and tasks. The proposal is among the best in the basin for watershed restoration work. See 19871001, related project by CTUIR. They need to work as one unit, based on an overall assessment, and include monitoring and evaluation (save costs too?). Past work was impressive using passive restoration.

This project must have data to show benefits to fish. These data should be included in the proposal; this was an ISRP comment in FY2000 as well. Monitoring and evaluation is buried elsewhere (199000501 and 198902401) and needs to be brought to the surface in the proposal, and improved.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

The cost of this project continues to increase due to change in approach (I.e., active vs. passive channel restoration).

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable as it stands. Fund the high-priority restoration work only, after further review. Habitat restoration is justified and critical in this watershed, and the personnel appear experienced and qualified for on-the-ground applications. There is evidence of an improved and cooperative approach to the restoration work, learning from past experience, knowledge of the literature and some careful analysis and consideration of priorities. However, the project could be improved by addressing the restoration issue in a science-based manner with a watershed assessment utilizing standard format or procedures, with adequate post-treatment monitoring. See comments for 198710001. Clear evidence of a subbasin watershed assessment (in close cooperation with CTUIR) and prescription plan (with priorities) must be provided. The watershed assessment and plan should precede and direct the restoration efforts to be consistent with the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program's primary strategy for habitat, "Identify the current condition and biological potential of the habitat, and then protect or restore it to the extent described in the biological objectives." Moving this project into a fully fundable status will require clear listing and justification of priorities, and for monitoring, the input of an experienced analytical team, towards development of a subbasin assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, and monitoring plan with clearly defined response variables, and with ties to a basinwide task of effectiveness monitoring. Please refer to ISRP general comments on monitoring in the introduction section. Habitat restoration projects should be evaluated as a program on the basis of smolt yield as a key response variable, in selected control and treatment watersheds (but not all watersheds), with replication. Components of restoration (hillslopes, riparian, in-stream) in all projects require routine monitoring (for example, fish presence or absence, relative abundance, or decreased sedimentation, or clear evidence of temperature improvements, etc.). Sufficient evidence of any of these was not presented. Functional responses to restoration work may require scientific research that is not requested herein.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Protect and enhance coldwater fish habitat on private lands in the Umatilla River basin by fencing.

Comments
See comments above for #198710001. Proposal needs a clear listing and justification of priorities, and the input of an analytical team toward development of a subbasin assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, and monitoring plan with clearly defined response variables, & with ties to a basinwide task of effectiveness monitoring. Habitat restoration projects should be evaluated as a program on the basis of smolt yield as a key response variable, in selected control and treatment watersheds, with replication.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank B

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

IN FY02, BPA prefers to continue only the habitat enhancement work that was funded in prior years, O&M needed to maintain the benefits of that work, and an M&E program associated with the work performed to date. We wish to defer any new commitments for funding, both for the habitat enhancement costs and staffing, pending resolution of issues described below. We do this with considerable reservation, given the strong local support and the habitat improvements that the sponsor and its local partners have made so far.

BPA believes it is time to reassess direction and priorities for habitat enhancement in the Umatilla subbasin and indeed, across all subbasins and provinces. For example, the work proposed here appears diffuse (18.5 miles in 9 different watersheds) and not focused on priority areas. BPA greatly prefers to fund riparian habitat enhancement work that is guided by a subbasin plan. The ISRP withheld its support for this project until "a subbasin watershed assessment and prescription plan" is provided, and the proposal states (p. 3 of narrative) that Washington State University is presently completing such an assessment. BPA particularly desires two things from the assessment and subsequent proposals:

An inventory of the productive and relatively undisturbed reaches on private lands in the watershed (if any) that may be at risk, and a plan for how to protect them (NMFS Biological Opinion Action 150 and the "Watershed Health" strategy of the Implementation Plan).
Better integration of BPA-funded habitat enhancement work with other conservation programs, such as those of the USDA.

We do note the significant OWEB cost share with this product, but also the substantial increase in BPA funding requested. BPA-funded projects like this have been criticized for their relatively high costs and some have even advised us that detailing project staff to the local SWCD would be more financially responsible. We want to see a better effort to include other funding sources in local habitat enhancement toolboxes before additional BPA funds are committed.

BPA's financial resources are limited. The large number and high cost of projects proposed so far in the provincial review process, particularly for the Columbia Plateau Province, would exhaust the entire FWP budget if all high priority and "fundable" projects were actually funded by BPA. This underscores the need to ensure that each project, whether ongoing or new, is focused on priority needs and is efficiently addressing those needs. We wish to see this project reconsider its direction and focus before committing funds beyond the maintenance level for FY02 described above. This applies to project #198710002 as well.

We recognize the importance of Birch Creek within the subbasin and region, because of the historical and intensive habitat enhancement owrk performed there so far. We wish to continue an M&E program on habitat enhancement work completed under this project to date, and we note that project #199000501 is funding some of that M&E. We would like the project sponsor and ODFW to participate in a review and possible reorientation of the ongoing habitat M&E in the subbasin, as recommended also by the ISRP. Late 2001 would be timely for such a review, and BPA representatives would plan to participate.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

ISRP" Disagree - Not Fundable" recommendations for Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat (CTUIR) Project 198710001, and Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement (ODFW) Project 198710002

BPA prefers to fund only the habitat enhancement work for which previous funding obligations have been made under these projects. BPA has determined there is a need to reassess direction and priorities for habitat enhancement in the Umatilla subbasin. To accomplish this they would like the sponsors to participate in a review and reorientation of the proposals, as suggest by the ISRP, prior to funding.

Staff recommendation: These projects are intended to implement actions that protect and enhance riparian and in-stream habitat in the Umatilla River Basin. The staff concludes that the ISRP's comments highlight concerns about the continuing watershed restoration, to this degree and intensity, without a subbasin assessment and plan. The critical subbasin assessment needs to be developed in close cooperation and a prescription plan is needed to define the roles of these projects.

The staff recommends continued funding of the base program and passive restoration strategies (i.e. screening, riparian buffers) for these projects pending subbasin planning. The staff recommends that the budget not include funding for aggressive channel design/implementation techniques. Bonneville funding for this effort needs to be justified in the Council's subbasin planning process. In addition budgets for FY 2003 and 2004 need to be refined in the development of the FY 2002 Budget and SOW that reflect the base program and passive restoration strategies (e.g. screening, riparian buffers). Following are the adjustments to the proposals reflecting the staff recommendations regarding the objectives and tasks to be funded.

Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement (ODFW) Project 198710002: objective 1 (tasks a - f) at $142,801, objective 2 no funding recommended, objective 3 (task a - e) at $79,864, objective 4 (task a - e) at $23,874, objective 5 (task a - e) at $21,225 and objective 6 (task a - e) at $32,500. Totaling $300,264.

Budget effect on base program (Project 198710002):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Increase $300,264	Increase $300,264	Increase $300,264

Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat (CTUIR) Project 198710001: Section 4, objective 1, task b at $19,442, objective 2 at $74,914*, and objective 3 at $5,150; Section 5, objective 1, task b, c, d, e, f, g and h at $154,262; Section 6, objective 1 at $61,866 and 2 at $5,733; Section 7, objective 1 task a, c, d, e, f, g and h at $28,633. Totaling $350,000

Budget effect on base program (Project 198710001):

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004
Increase $350,000	Increase $350,000	Increase $350,000

*2 Section 4, objective 2, task a - f funded at a lower level to reflect funding for the base program and passive restoration (as described in the issue document) to cover staff salaries, travel and support.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Have done passive restoration work and M&E to take over for active restoration comment from ISRP. 05 SCOPE CHANGE for additional planning and design for subbasin planning. Challenge of using no-active restoration in this area.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

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:
$300,264	$300,264	$300,264

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website