FY 2000 proposal 198402100

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
198402100 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in the John Day Subbasin
Proposal ID	198402100
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Tim Bailey
Mailing address	73471 Mytinger Lane Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone / email	5412762344 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Establish long term riparian, fish habitat and tributary passage improvement on private lands within the John Day Subbasin.
Target species	Spring Chinook and Summer Steelhead

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

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
1998	Constructed 132 miles of riparian livestock exclosure fencing protecting 72 miles of stream and 1,512 acres of riparian habitat. Planted 7,450 riparian trees or shrubs, and installed 3,040 instream structures.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
8402500	Protect And Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat In Grande Ronde Basin Streams	Shares funding and personnel to implement and maintain projects on Camas Creek.

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	2 FTE's, 1 Temp	$99,200
Fringe	38% of Personnel amount	$37,696
Supplies	Fence materials, instream materials, field supplies	$62,500
Operating	This is for supplies and materials only.	$18,000
Capital	Solar water pumps, chainsaw, replace an all terrain vehicle	$12,000
Travel		$17,000
Indirect	35.5 % of Personnel, Fringe, O & M and travel	$87,470
Subcontractor	Fence and instream construction	$92,180
		$426,046

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$426,046
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$426,046
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Catastrophic natural events such as floods, windstorms or extreme fire danger

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Fund for one year with medium priority

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund for one year with medium priority. Subsequent funding contingent on demonstration of biologically measurable results and future monitoring plans.

Comments: The Council should determine if the continued installation and annual operation and maintenance are cost effective in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife. Reviewers invite a summary of results from some 15 years of stream fencing and other improvements to establish some level of success: In short, the proposal should be able to demonstrate biologically measurable results. They should use science-based quantitative data to demonstrate cost-effective gains toward the primary objective. The reviewers urge more complete measurements of quantity/quality of all life stages of fish species of concern, documented and analyzed, with appropriate comparisons with unfenced areas for statistical analysis. The costs of fencing and protecting riparian corridors, combined with the politics of fencing issues, require comprehensive science-based analysis, which then can be used to plot successful long-term, cost-effective strategies. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.

State and Federal Government should seek incentive systems that appropriately motivate and reward landowners who protect riparian habitat. This would afford an improved economic policy and complement other studies in the basin.

Specific comments and questions that should also be address are: The author(s) offer no comparative cost data from other subbasins or methods in behalf of habitat protection. Measures of success for past restoration activities are expressed in non-biological terms (number of leases, acres of riparian vegetation fenced, stream miles, etc.). About 8.4 miles of a total of 542 miles of stream in the John Day Subbasin are proposed for enhancement/protection in this proposal, but too few data are offered to document how this 1.5 per cent of the total stream length was selected. Noting the claim that 8 projects have met the objective and 27 are said to be improving, quantitative criteria are absent. These would be useful to confirm that "objective" and appropriate criteria and standards were used in computing this record.

Objective No. 4 (monitoring and evaluating) relies on indirect measurement of larval and juvenile salmon productivity indexes, including redd counts. Because adult salmon returns are influenced by many factors other than stream improvement, this is not an adequate indicator unless accompanied by appropriate statistical analysis and comparisons to relevant controls (unimproved areas).

The proposal argues persuasively for 15-year leases and continued maintenance, but there is inadequate information on what may follow. Are there appropriate incentives for landowners to continue maintenance?

The proposal cites increased redd counts as evidence of program success in some streams, but credible science-based evidence is lacking. Increased redd counts could be due to other factors or projects, including random error.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Most cost increase due to ODFW indirect rate increase. Kudos for including songbird and morphology studies. #5- Donated leases on substantial acreage and in-kind; no $ quantified. #6 - Will need O&M to sustain improvements, but proposal shows some landowner support

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

One of the best written proposals.

Proposal exceeds the page limit.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

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:
$447,889	$447,889	$447,889

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website