FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199802800

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This proposal is to fund the Trout Creek Watershed Council to conduct a watershed assessment and develop a long-range plan for the Trout Creek Basin. The proposal presents the history, background, complexity, and multi-party involvement that exist in the Trout Creek watershed restoration efforts. The Trout Creek Watershed Council has been working cooperatively with ODFW to conduct the watershed assessment and will continue cooperative work in the development of a long-range action plan. Work will be conducted through cooperative agreements with private landowners. The proposal makes a good case for the proposed actions, as well as their sequence for implementation. Unfortunately, details (either methods or implementation details) are generally missing from the proposal, making review difficult.

More information is needed on the following:

General comments:

• A big part of the budget is cost share of repairing "Corps Berms": why is this a BPA problem? Cost justification is pretty vague for >$1M over next few years.
• The objective of increasing steelhead spawning is laudable but has no monitoring/evaluation attached to it, i.e. steelhead stock assessment, even if by another project.

• Tasks 1-3 - Comprehensive Watershed Assessment and Long-Range Watershed Restoration Plan. Lay out the schedule, process, steps to be followed and the anticipated deliverables from present to completion of a long-range watershed restoration plan (Task 2) and a monitoring plan (Task 3). How long has the watershed assessment been in process? The proposal sounds like it has been an ongoing process that has no specified end date. What are the results of the assessment to date on the 8 listed components? The project's historical success is not thoroughly presented in either biologically or geomorphologically measurable terms, but only in numbers of projects accomplished.
• Task 4 - USACE stream restoration project. Lay out the schedule and the anticipated deliverables from present to completion of this project. What is the target end date? What process will be used to develop the plan? This section should describe the specific sites, actions, and methods to be used in the project.
• Task 5 - Install infiltration galleries. Additional background and context information in this section would improve the proposal. How many pushup dams exist in the Trout Creek basin? How many have already been replaced? How many have been identified as priority sites for replacement by infiltration galleries? This proposal intends to add 7 galleries to the basin. How many are left to be done and how long will it take?
• Task 6 - Offsite solar water systems. Similar observations as made for Task 5.
• Task 7 - Road crossings. Proposal indicates that BPA will provide culvert funding. Other locations we have visited are attempting to use open arch passageways as much as possible for obvious ecological reasons. What types of culverts are planned for use and what is the justification for that type of culvert?
• Task 8 - Upland range improvements. Similar observations as made for Task 5.
• Task 9 - Enroll landowners in incentive-based programs. This is a worthwhile goal and a number of proposals from various SWCDs and NRCS attempted to address this issue. The Trout Creek proposal should describe the linkages that exist (or how such linkages might be forged) among the Trout Creek Watershed Council, the county SWCDs, the NRCS, and other pertinent entities. How will information be provided? What tasks will the WC perform and how specifically will work be coordinated with the NRCS and SWCD?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
Proposal is to implement practices that will enhance steelhead smolt production & habitat recovery following completion of a watershed assessment/long-range plan currently being conducted.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

1. Completion of the watershed assessment (in cooperation with project 1994-042-00) and project planning (Planning and Design Objective 1).
2. The $350,000 cost-share for the COE stream habitat enhancement (part of C&I Objective 1).

We do not wish to fund M&E through this project until there has been a thorough review of needs, methods, potential redundancy and coordination (e.g., with proposed projects 25010 and 25088), and funding responsibilities for the Trout Creek watershed. For example, we wish to consider the value of photopoint-based monitoring relative to the costs in this proposal and to consider the role of the project sponsor (and BPA funds) in monitoring flow and temperature at an established USGS gauging station. BPA recognizes the value of the habitat enhancement work performed in Trout Creek and the opportunity that this watershed provides to measure the effectiveness of that habitat enhancement work. We wish to see a comprehensive, well integrated, and well justified M&E plan before BPA funds habitat M&E in the Trout Creek watershed beyond 2002.

This project states cost-sharing, but the information is incorrect. It contains considerable BPA funds from other projects and even from one task of this project. Only non-BPA funds should appear in the cost-share category.

Comment:

Project 199802800 - The staff recommends that this ongoing project be funded at the "base" level. The Staff recommends not funding the completion of the watershed assessment as defined in Section 4, objective 1 task a, b, and c. Staff also recommends funding project components that include only passive restoration and fish passage improvements. Task a, the largest part of this project, is the request for cost share of $350,000 (this amount will leverage the $650,000 contribution from COE) for a project with COE to design and implement a stream restoration project associated with berm removals and channel reconstruction. Staff considers this a new non-passive restoration project and therefore should be framed in the context of subbasin plans. If the project is ripe for implementation during the fiscal year the sponsors can pursue a with-in year funding request through CBFWA.

Budget effect on base program (Project 199802800):   

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website