FY 2000 proposal 199802100
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 199802100 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Hood River Fish Habitat Project |
| Proposal ID | 199802100 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Michael Lambert |
| Mailing address | 3450 W 10th St. The Dalles, OR 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5412966866 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Hood |
| Short description | Implement habitat improvement actions that will support supplementation efforts within the Hood River subbasin as approved by the NPPC and supported by the BPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hood River Production Program (HRPP). |
| Target species | Spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), summer and winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Completed .5 miles of riparian livestock exclosure fencing on Neal Creek (Kirby property). |
| 1996 | Completed 75 feet of bioengineered rip rap, which included vegetative plantings, on Neal Creek (Kirby property). |
| 1998 | Completed 1.2 miles of riparian livestock exclosure fencing on Neal Creek (Guisto & Meyers property). |
| 1998 | Completed 75 feet of bioengineered rip rap, which included vegetative plantings, on Neal Creek (Guisto property). |
| 1998 | Planted 130 ponderosa pine conifer seedlings on Neal Creek (Kirby property). |
| 1998 | Removed a portion of the Tony Creek Dee Mill diversion concrete apron. |
| 1998 | Completed a preliminary feasibility evaluation for East Fork Irrigation District in developing an NMFS approved diversion and screen or pipe bypass system on Neal Creek. |
| 1999 | Completed 100 feet of bioengineered rip rap, which included vegetative plantings, on Neal Creek (Meyers property) [In progress]. |
| 1999 | Eliminated the lower Evans Creek irrigation diversion (Higgins pond) by constructing a gravity pressure pipe system [In progress]. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8902900 | Hood River Production Program / Round Butte Hatchery production and Pelton | |
| 9301900 | Hood River Production Program - Oak Springs, Powerdale, and Parkdale / O&M | |
| 8805304 | Hood River Production Program / ODFW M&E | |
| 9500700 | Pelton Ladder Hood River Production / PGE O&M | |
| 20513 | Hood River / Fifteenmile Creek | |
| 8805303 | Hood River Production Program / CTWSRO M&E |
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 | 1 month project leader salary | $3,124 |
| Fringe | benefits @ 23% | $719 |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| NEPA | Supplement analysis under the Programmatic EIS’s | $7,500 |
| Indirect | Indirect @ 41.4% | $1,591 |
| Subcontractor | Middle Fork Irrigation District | $55,000 |
| Subcontractor | Interfluve | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | Farmers Irrigation District | $100,000 |
| Subcontractor | Hood River Soil & Water Conservation District | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | East Fork Irrigation District | $20,000 |
| $227,934 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $227,934 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $227,934 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hood River Soil & Water Conservation District | A Watershed/Habitat Coordinator to oversee all habitat actions and seek cost share dollars for all habitat projects. | $20,000 | unknown |
| Middle Fork Irrigation District (MFID) | Pipe 3.25 miles of ditch to eliminate the use of two irrigation water diversions on Evans Creek. | $900,000 | unknown |
| Farmers Irrigation District (FID) | Engineer, construct, and install a new fish screen facility that meets criteria on the mainstem Hood River. | $985,000 | unknown |
| East Fork Irrigation District (EFID) | Install an alternative screen and diversion or bypass system on Neal Creek. | $350,000 | unknown |
| ODFW | Assist in Neal Creek ditch (EFID) and Farmers canal ditch (FID). | $1,045 | unknown |
| Hood River Watershed Group | Assist in fish salvage and spawning ground surveys (habitat monitoring). | $1,400 | unknown |
| Hood River Production Program - CTWS M&E contract 8805303 | Assist in fish salvage, population estimates, and spawning ground surveys (monitoring activities which coincides with habitat monitoring). | $4,750 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: No schedule constraints for FY 2000 projects. Milestones listed under the above table (objective schedules and costs) apply to the Hood River Fish Habitat Project and all individual implemented projects.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fund (medium to high priority).
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund (medium to high priority). OK for multi-year funding but review on an annual basis for progress towards meeting objectives, particularly the monitoring methods.Comments: This is a very complex project involving substantial funding from a large number of sources. It is linked to a number of other projects and the cost share looks good, as does the rationale. It is a fairly complete proposal, but it needs more detail in several critical areas: (1) how will the results of watershed assessment be used to identify habitat restoration priorities? (2) has passive restoration been considered as a viable alternative to bioengineering? (3) what is being done to reduce the source of damage to streambanks and riparian vegetation?, and (4) how will results of salmon and steelhead life history studies be used to identify potential habitat limitations to production (e.g., what is the biological basis for believing that creation of a spawning channel will significantly increase production)? In addition, they list four site-specific projects in the objectives but describe three of the four in the narrative. The weakest part of the proposal is the lack of a clear evaluation methodology for assessing long-term success of the alterations. How will success/failure be defined? For example, "spawning ground surveys will be completed annually to assess the upstream passage/spawning benefits." Will one more fish define success? How will variability be addressed? Time lags? At this cost, they need to assure that the work is providing measurable benefits to fish and wildlife. They need to better document the interaction of this project with 8805303 the monitoring and evaluation component of the HFPP. The emphasis on improving the water diversion screens looks good.
Comment:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Clarify relationship between passage at these diversions and the overall plan for the basin. Demonstrate that habitat issues will be addressed after passage has been improved.Show that these are the most important projects. State expected results (e.g. specific fish benefits).
Analysis has clearly been done.
Describe longer- term strategy to address other issues.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $699,626 | $699,626 | $699,626 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website