Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Project Number:
1998-022-00
Title:
Pine Creek Conservation Area
Summary:
Contract for Operations & Management of the Pine Creek Conservation Area by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.

The Conservation Area includes the Pine Creek Ranch and Wagner Ranch Acquisitions, and is managed by the Tribes in accordance with the Pine Creek Conservation Area Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management Plan. This plan serves as the site-specific management plan called for in Section 3. (b) of the MOA between the Tribes and BPA. The MOA is the primary legal document guiding the Tribes' management of the property. This plan is supplemental to the MOA, and provides further definition to the Tribes commitment to manage the property for fish and wildlife habitat.

Pine Creek Conservation Area is intended, as a wildlife and watershed mitigation site, to partially offset wildlife habitat losses caused by John Day Dam on the Columbia River. Habitat management will, as specified in the MOA between BPA and the Tribes, to the extent possible, focus on strategies designed to achieve and maintain native habitat that is naturally self-sustaining.

In many cases, recovery of watershed functions or native plant communities may only occur over the course of several decades. Other changes, such as community dominance by invasive species, may be permanent without active intervention on the part of land managers. Future climate changes may also limit or prevent recovery to historic conditions.

Where possible, altered or damaged ecosystem functions will be restored through passive restoration techniques, such as the prevention of activities which degrade or prevent recovery. Passive restoration strategies will be paired with active interventions as needed, such as replacement of culverts creating fish passage barriers. It is hoped that these efforts will lead to conservation of biodiversity in the form of native fish, wildlife, and plant communities.

An additional goal for the project is to work in partnership with neighboring landowners, local, state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, and educational groups, and serve as an example of watershed recovery and wildlife habitat management in the lower John Day Basin. Successful monitoring of changes to vegetation, wildlife, fish use and distribution, and hydrology are critical to this effort.

Specific management objectives are identified in the Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management Plan.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1998
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau John Day 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $655,489 $461,351 $408,292 $408,292 $332,509

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $461,351 $408,292 $408,292 $332,509
FY2017 (Current) $665,992 $720,572 $665,992 $665,992 $186,470

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $720,572 $665,992 $665,992 $186,470
FY2018 (Next) $441,259 $441,259 $0 $0 $0

Post 2018 – Warm Springs $441,259 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $362,162 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2016 Expense $68,335 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2016 Expense $224,992 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (CRITFC, Idaho, WS) 8/19/2015 08/20/2015
FY2016 Expense $139,558 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (YN, WS, Idaho) 8/24/2016 08/24/2016
FY2016 Expense $54,580 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS, YN, CTUIR) 3/20/17 03/20/2017
FY2017 Expense $362,162 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2017 Expense $79,097 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $85,175 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Warm Springs) 12/17/2015 12/29/2015
FY2017 Expense $139,558 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (YN, WS, Idaho) 8/24/2016 08/24/2016
FY2017 Expense $54,580 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS, YN, CTUIR) 3/20/17 03/20/2017
FY2018 Expense $441,259 From: Post 2018 – Warm Springs FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 56 %
FY2015 31 %
FY2014 44 %
FY2013 32 %
FY2012 36 %
FY2011 35 %
FY2010 49 %
FY2009 39 %
FY2008 51 %
FY2007 44 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Bureau of Indian Affairs $5,500
FY2015 Local project sponsors $57,450
FY2015 Oregon Department Of Fish and Wildlife $2,250
FY2015 Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) $39,890
FY2015 Oregon Natural Desert Association $26,678
FY2015 US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) $23,400
FY2015 US Forest Service (USFS) $11,000
FY2015 US Geological Survey (USGS) $9,103
FY2015 US National Park Service (NPS) $1,467
FY2015 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) $11,587
FY2015 Wheeler County $3,500
FY2016 Bureau of Indian Affairs $104,749
FY2016 Local project sponsors $11,555
FY2016 Oregon Department Of Fish and Wildlife $2,650
FY2016 Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) $244,509
FY2016 Oregon Natural Desert Association $30,380
FY2016 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board $69,336
FY2016 US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) $94,725
FY2016 US Forest Service (USFS) $2,600
FY2016 US Geological Survey (USGS) $7,980
FY2016 US National Park Service (NPS) $3,460
FY2016 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) $16,587
FY2016 Wheeler County $7,245

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-005057 Bonneville Power Administration FY10 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Active $2,304 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005419 Bonneville Power Administration Wilderness Land Exchange review Active $0 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006196 Bonneville Power Administration Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Active $13,178 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006852 Bonneville Power Administration Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Active $757 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007493 Bonneville Power Administration 2014 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008410 Bonneville Power Administration FY15 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
71455 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Issued $405,497 2/1/2016 - 1/31/2017
BPA-008813 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 Land Acquisition (expense) Active $2,795 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
74959 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Issued $416,000 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
BPA-009452 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 Land Acquisition & TBL Realty Service Active $249,992 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):11
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:50
On time:10
Avg Days Late:17

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4284 15005, 31693, 36591, 41012, 45933, 51212, 59924, 68025, 71455, 74959 1998-022-00 PINE CREEK RANCH Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 04/2001 04/2001 Issued 50 121 0 0 4 125 96.80% 0
BPA-005057 FY10 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005419 Wilderness Land Exchange review Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006196 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006852 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007493 2014 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008410 FY15 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008813 FY16 Land Acquisition (expense) Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009452 FY17 Land Acquisition & TBL Realty Service Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 50 121 0 0 4 125 96.80% 0


Review: Wildlife Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The project should move forward as planned. This project has produced one of the best monitoring reports in all of the wildlife projects (i.e., the Feb 2006 monitoring report is very comprehensive and thorough). Once again, this is a strong and exemplary proposal that could serve as a reporting model for others.

A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments, but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed for proper review and evaluation. If shorter periods existed between similarly thorough reports, benefits from the project could be tracked in a timelier manner to adapt to successes and failures – adaptive management.

The ISRP FY 2007-09 review comments still hold true, "This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project."

The ISRP regrets the sponsors did not participate in the project proposal presentations during the March 3-4, 2009 ISRP meeting. Presentations are informative and allow for dialogue with the review team members to enhance understanding of the projects goals, objectives, and progress. We encourage sponsors to present their project and work in the next review cycle.

Additional comments on each of the sections of the proposal are provided below:

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
This is an exceptionally well constructed and presented project proposal. It provides a clear description of the project's significance to the Program, its relationships to other subbasin and regional projects, and its technical justification. Technical justification for this proposal is excellent and includes a large number of supporting references, links to further supporting information/reports, photo comparisons, etc. The project is fully justified with significant potential benefits, to not only wildlife and their habitats, but also fish and aquatic habitats. Significance to regional plans and programs is well detailed including the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, John Day Subbasin Plan, Oregon Land Trust and many others. This project is linked with many local projects and partnerships including: CWCD, ODFW, OMSI, USFWS, and USGS.

2. Project History and Results
This section is well done. The sponsors use this extensive section of the proposal as a detailed reporting document, and it includes a good summary of much of the M&E reporting and results. This section is somewhat difficult to review because of its size, but it is better to include too much than not enough. The monitoring results report in the appendix are excellent and are outstanding as an example of how M&E data can indicate the value of well thought-out habitat restoration projects. This proposal is a model worthy of emulation.

A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed. If shorter periods between such reports could be done, benefits from the project could be tracked in a timelier manner to adapt to successes and failures - adaptive management.

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
The sponsors provide a complete and detailed response. This is a large project with many work elements ranging from noxious weed control, to habitat improvements on Pine Creek, which when water conditions allow, appears to be a significant steelhead spawning area. Objectives, work elements, and methods seem appropriate to the management goals for the project.

4. M&E
This is an excellent example of what a detailed monitoring program should look like.
We support continuation of the photo-plot monitoring but recommend more rigorous analysis (Dr. Fred Hall has a fine publication on this). Validation with on-the-ground monitoring is recommended because of resolution/interpretation difficulties associated with satellite imagery.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
The project should move forward as planned. This project has produced one of the best monitoring reports in all of the wildlife projects (i.e., the Feb 2006 monitoring report is very comprehensive and thorough). Once again, this is a strong and exemplary proposal that could serve as a reporting model for others.

A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments, but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed for proper review and evaluation. If shorter periods existed between similarly thorough reports, benefits from the project could be tracked in a more timely manner to adapt to successes and failures ¬- adaptive management.

The ISRP FY 2007-09 review comments still hold true "This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project."

The ISRP regrets the sponsors did not participate in the project proposal presentations during the March 3-4 2009 ISRP meeting. Presentations are informative and allow for dialogue with the review team members to enhance understanding of the projects goals, objectives, and progress. We encourage sponsors to present their project and work in the next review cycle.

Additional comments on each of the sections of the proposal are provided below:

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
This is an exceptionally well constructed and presented project proposal. It provides a clear description of the project's significance to the Program, its relationships to other subbasin and regional projects, and its technical justification. Technical justification for this proposal is excellent and includes a large number of supporting references, links to further supporting information/reports, photo comparisons, etc. The project is fully justified with significant potential benefits, to not only wildlife and their habitats, but also fish and aquatic habitats. Significance to regional plans and programs is well detailed including the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, John Day Subbasin Plan, Oregon Land Trust and many others. This project is linked with many local projects and partnerships including: CWCD, ODFW, OMSI, USFWS, and USGS.
2. Project History and Results
This section is well done. The sponsors use this extensive section of the proposal as a detailed reporting document, and it includes a good summary of much of the M&E reporting and results. This section is somewhat difficult to review because of its size, but it is better to include too much than not enough. The monitoring results report in the appendix are excellent and are outstanding as an example of how M&E data can indicate the value of well thought-out habitat restoration projects. This proposal is a model worthy of emulation.

A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed. If shorter periods between such reports could be done, benefits from the project could be tracked in a more timely manner to adapt to successes and failures - adaptive management.

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
The sponsors provide a complete and detailed response. This is a large project with many work elements ranging from noxious weed control, to habitat improvements on Pine Creek, which when water conditions allow, appears to be a significant steelhead spawning area. Objectives, work elements, and methods seem appropriate to the management goals for the project.

4. M&E
This is an excellent example of what a detailed monitoring program should look like.
We support continuation of the photo-plot monitoring but recommend more rigorous analysis (Dr. Fred Hall has a fine publication on this). Validation with on-the-ground monitoring is recommended because of resolution/interpretation difficulties associated with satellite imagery.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Accord Project. Programmatic issue # 7
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Management Plans - Multiple uses of wildlife conservation lands
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-022-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M on BPA-funded wildlife mitigation site; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-022-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Rick Hayes Project Lead Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Brad Houslet Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Robert Brunoe Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Jenna Peterson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Ashley (Inactive) Technical Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Ellen Wilt Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration