FY 2000 proposal 20018
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Tucannon River and Asotin Creek Riparian Enhancement |
| Proposal ID | 20018 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Steve Martin |
| Mailing address | 401 S. Cottonwood Dayton, WA 99328 |
| Phone / email | 5093821710 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Tucannon |
| Short description | Riparian Enhancement of the Tucannon River and Asotin Creek at Sites Unqualified for other Publically Funded Salmonid Habitat Restoration Efforts. |
| Target species | Snake River Chinook Salmon (Onchorynchus tshawtscha)
Snake River Steelhead Trout (Onchorynchus mykiss)
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan |
Hatchery Steelhead Production potentially affecting mortality of wild Snake River steelhead |
| 9401806 |
Tucannon Model Watershed Program |
Developing aquatic restoration projects on private land. In conjunction, this project proposes to enhance the riparian area on private land where other public funded restoration efforts are ineligible. |
| 940185 |
Asotin Creek Model Watershed Program |
Developing aquatic restoration projects on private land. In conjunction, this project proposes to enhance the riparian area on private land where other public funded restoration efforts are ineligible. |
|
WY-KAN-USH-MI-WA-KISH-WIT: The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration |
Hatchery Steelhead Production potentially affecting mortality of wild Snake River steelhead. |
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 |
One full-time Technician 4, and 0.1 FTE project supervisor |
$37,507 |
| Fringe |
28.5% of Personnel Costs |
$10,689 |
| Supplies |
Biodegradable pots, compost soil, hardware cloth, lumber, clippers, flagging, waders, etc |
$15,092 |
| Operating |
Vehicle mileage and equipment repairs |
$7,254 |
| Capital |
Truck with dump bed, small tractor with back hoe, dump trailer, and a hand held gas powered auger. |
$46,234 |
| Travel |
meetings, seminars, and presentations |
$1,145 |
| Indirect |
22.5% (excludes capitol equipment) |
$16,130 |
| $134,051 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $134,051 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $134,051 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| WDFW |
Native vegetation nursery and building structures to use as nursery location |
$20,000 |
unknown |
| Columbia Conservation District |
Consultation, site reviews and landowner solicitations |
$2,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Stream flooding in March will prevent us from establishing the spring “water line” from which we determine the riparian woody species elevation to plant.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund; encourage resubmission following comprehensive review of restoration programs within the Tucannon basin, and demonstration of biological benefits.
Comments:
This is a new proposal to supplement already implemented projects (by Asotin County, Pomeroy, and Columbia Conservation Districts) to improve stream habitat within the Tucannon River Basin. Funds would be used for restoration efforts at sites not eligible for funding under other projects – i.e., where landowner cost sharing is required. Funds would be used primarily for restoration of riparian vegetation to help reduce water temperatures.
This project appears driven more by programmatic opportunities and constraints, than by scientific necessity. It badly needs a review to determine overall objectives, what measures are most appropriate to achieving them, and how funding should be allocated to assure the greatest return in terms of habitat. This is not achievable within the framework of an annual reviews of an ongoing project. It may well be that some funding from other ongoing activities would be better allocated to the sites and measures identified in this proposal. However, information is not at hand to make such a judgment, and the only responsible action at this point is to decline to fund this activity until a comprehensive review of all of Tucannon River projects is completed. This will require a site visit by an independent panel, equipped with adequate background information to allow it to provide a sound assessment of progress and viability of the project(s).
CBFWA's technical evaluation was that "The project proposes using BPA funds for private landowners wishing to avoid restrictive conditions associated with alternative funding sources (page 8). Monitoring plan needs more detail. Not enough detail in the methods (width of setback, number of trees, stream distance protected)." Reviewers agree that the proposal does not warrant approval at this time and should rather await re-submittal with more clearly defined objectives and with assurance that the project will be of benefit to fish and wildlife.'
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The project proposes using BPA funds for private landowners wishing to avoid restrictive conditions associated with alternative funding sources (page 8).Monitoring plan needs more detail.
Not enough detail in the methods (width of setback, number of trees, stream distance protected).
This is a good example of non-structural restoration activities.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];