AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:  In April 2007, this contract was amended by adding a two new work elements and a budget modification to fund these new work elements.  The two new work element are Work Element  L. 174: 5.11 Develop an implementation strategy for the Entiat IMW and Work Element N. 132: Produce Annual Report.  All the milestones and other information within these new work elements are new.  Associated work element budget modifications have been provided in an amended contract budget.  This amendment does not require additional environmental compliance coordination as it only specifies the production of a report and does not involve any field work that could jeopardize endangered species, etc. No other changes to the contract were made during this amendment. See detailed justification for/description of proposed work for this amendment below at end of  CONTRACT DESCRIPTION.

CONTRACT DESCRIPTION: Since its inception in FY2003, Project #2003-017-00 (the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program; ISEMP) has been developing two novel monitoring and evaluation programs: (i) subbasin-scale pilot status and trend monitoring efforts for anadromous salmonids and their habitat in the Wenatchee, John Day and South Fork Salmon River basins, and (ii) effectiveness monitoring for suites of habitat restoration projects in selected watersheds within the three target subbasins.  This work - critical for implementing the 2000 NMFS FCRPS Biological Opinion (RPA Actions 180, 181, and 183) (BiOp) and UPAs from the 2004 BiOp - builds on current status and trend monitoring programs within each of these basins.  Several regional and local organizations are funding and implementing these programs.  In short, this project has integrated existing and new monitoring and evaluation activities in three pilot subbasins to help ensure that provisions of the BiOp are satisfied.

In FY2005, an effectiveness monitoring program-element was initiated in the Entiat Subbasin because restoration activities in this subbasin were more suited to scientific study.  The ability of an effectiveness monitoring program to successfully detect subbasin-scale changes in fish populations brought about by restoration actions requires the ability of the monitoring scientists to control, or at least strongly influence, the timing/location/magnitude of restoration activities.  This influence directly affects the ability of the scientists to properly design the experiment and sample the necessary indicators.

The Entiat subbasin is particularly well suited to meet these needs because of its strong history of rigorous restoration and recovery planning, the opportune timing of its recovery efforts (just now beginning to get underway in earnest) that allow for concurrent monitoring design, and the supportive local planning group (the Entiat Watershed Planning Unit; EWPU) who place a high value on scientific assessment, planning, and evaluation through monitoring, and who have welcomed ISEMP's participation.  Other unique qualities of the Entiat subbasin also benefit the ISEMP effectiveness monitoring program, including:
- The Entiat is adjacent to the Wenatchee where ISEMP status and trend program-elements are being executed and is comprised of the same ecotypes and has populations of the same target fish species (steelhead and spring chinook salmon) as the Wenatchee allowing for references and comparisons to be made between the two subbasins and their watersheds;
- In addition to the supportive EWPU, the agencies operating in the two subbasins are very similar and include some of the same contractors and field crews that are already working for ISEMP,
- Land management in the Entiat is a relatively stable mix of agriculture and national forest management compared to the rapidly urbanizing watershed of the Wenatchee,
- Factors limiting fish populations have been identified and narrowly defined; therefore, the actions necessary to reverse these factors will be straightforward and relatively easy to implement greatly improving the chance that the restoration program will to effect subbasin-scale changes that the monitoring program will be able to identify.
The initiation of a pilot effectiveness project (known as the Bridge-to-Bridge monitoring project) at a limited reach scale in FY2005 was successful.  Therefore, the ISEMP program has proposed to expand this effort into a subbasin-scale effort in FY2006.  The coordination needs of this effort are considerable and are reflected in this contract with Terraqua, Inc., who has been coordinating ISEMP monitoring efforts in the Wenatchee and Entiat subbasins since ISEMP's inception.

Terraqua's role has been, and continues to be, to enable the Bonneville Power Administration to continue to implement Project #2003-017-00 in the Wenatchee and Entiat subbasins.  Objectives of this work have been, and continue to be:
- Coordinate contract development between Bonneville and entities participating in implementation of the ISEMP program in the Wenatchee/Entiat and other pilot subbasins.
- Coordinate contract implementation between Bonneville and entities participating of the ISEMP program in the Wenatchee/Entiat and other pilot subbasins to insure that implementation activities meet the purpose and needs of the ISEMP program.
- Implement selected monitoring activities.
- Coordinate the design and testing of a data management system to support the program with local ISEMP contractors.
- Analyze and report results related to the implementation of monitoring activities.

This contract represents a significant increase in scope and budget over the previous Terraqua Release #4 primarily due to the expansion of ISEMP activities into the Entiat subbasin.  To offset the expanded costs associated with this expanded scope of work, Terraqua has: maintained the same rates for key personnel as were charged in previous years; has brought on new staff to assume some of the responsibilities previously executed by more senior staff; and has reduced the scope of some coordination elements that were more prominent in earlier releases as those elements have been completed or institutionalized to the point they are relatively maintenance-free.  The following list describes details associated with some of the significant scope/budget differences compared to Release #4:
- An 80% increase in budget for "Coordination" (i.e. task 5.1 compared to 4.1) reflects the expanded effort to develop and manage a doubling of contracts and program-elements in the Entiat while maintaining work in the Wenatchee.  This increase is also modeled on the actual number of hours spent on Coordination in FY2005 compared to the amount under-projected in 4.1.
- The decrease in budget for "Implementation Strategy" design (i.e. 5.2 vs. 4.2) is also a decrease compared to FY2004 Task 2.2.  Task 2.2 was for the development of the implementation strategy for the Wenatchee.  Task 5.2 is for comparable implementation strategy development in the Entiat plus maintenance of the project tracking tool developed in 4.2.  The better cost efficiency this year will result from using a lower-cost technical writer as well as experience learned from the last effort.
- The budget for Task 5.3 is about 60% lower than Task 4.3 because the data management system is largely built.  Coordination efforts on this front are shifting to user interface development between ISEMP contractors and NOAA developers that requires less Terraqua time.
- The budget for Task 5.4 is 62% higher to accommodate a request that came out of a meeting between BPA and ISEMP staff in April 2006.  This represents a 50% increase in hours (and a larger increase in expenses) to represent the program at more general meetings (Gerald, this is a scope/budget that could be whittled down pending a discussion with you).
- The budget for Task 5.5 is 50% lower than 4.5 because the work in task 5.5 will be largely confined to modifying a "working" document created in Task 4.5.
- Task 5.6 is 40% more expensive than Task 4.6 because of a 5% increase in macroinvertebrate analysis costs and 36% increase in the number of samples expected to be processed resulting from additional sampling in the Entiat.
- An expansion of scope under Task 5.7 explains the bulk of the increase in cost between Releases 4 and 5.  However, the magnitude of this increase was reduced by a better (and lower) estimate of time required for each site based on experience in FY2005.  The scope of this task includes sampling at 25 (compared with 10; 150% increase) status/trend sample sites and 20 (compared to 9, 122% increase) control/treatment sites.  In light of this more-than-doubling of work, the 70% increase in cost is relatively modest.
- The cost of Task 5.9 has dropped about 5% for the same field sampling scope as in 4.9 due to the cost-efficiencies noted in Task 5.7.  Furthermore, our per site cost of $1,538 (which includes field labor and expenses, mobilization/demobilization, data entry, and training) is favorable compared to other ISEMP field work.
- Project management costs (Task 5.10) have risen to accommodate additional in-person program updates to BPA staff like the effort in April 2006.

(April 2007) AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:

The ultimate goal of the Entiat IMW to is to evaluate the biological response of ESA-listed species to projects intended to enhance aquatic habitat. The general hypothesis is that restoration efforts promoting a more natural, self-sustaining condition lead to significant population increases of target species. Since it is unlikely that population response to individual projects will be detectable, a
comprehensive, watershed level restoration effort is required for a more reliable statistical evaluation of species response. The scope and scale of such an effort will require strategic direction, careful planning and long-term monitoring.  To date, habitat restoration efforts in the Entiat IMW have not been of sufficient scale to enable empirical evaluation of restoration through ISEMP. The Project Partners estimate that up to 75 instream structures and off-channel restoration projects, completed within a three to five year timeframe, will be necessary to test hypotheses. Such an ambitious restoration project will require a project proponent and team of professionals to handle the myriad tasks required for successful and timely completion.  Under this amendment GeoEngineer, Inc., will develop Phase 1 of a three phase plan that includes:  

Phase 1: Scoping
• Develop Planning Strategy (Task 1)
• Develop Contact List and Schedule (Task 2)
• Develop Time and Cost Estimates (Task 3)

Phase 2: Wenatchee-Entiat ISTE Development
• Develop Conceptual Restoration Plan
• Permit Plan Framework
• Schedule and Cost Estimates

Phase 3: Construction
• Construct Preferred Design Alternative
• (Includes Monitoring and Maintenance).

The purpose of this amendment is to fund GeoEngineers, Inc. to complete Phase 1, developing an Implementation Strategy for the treatment element of the ISEMP in the Entiat IMW.  GeoEngineers is ideally suited to assist the Project Partners with the development of an Implementation Strategy for the treatment element of the ISEMP in the Entiat IMW.  GeoEngineers has developed habitat restoration plans, secured project funding, completed permitting and design work, developed design specifications and bid packages, assisted with bid processes, and provided construction oversight and post-construction monitoring for dozens of projects in the Columbia River Basin and Pacific Northwest. Its staff is expert with this type of project work and includes: fisheries biologists, habitat biologists, fluvial geomorphologists, hydrologists, hydraulic modelers, licensed engineers, expert project managers, and experienced permit and regulatory assistance staff. GeoEngineers also offers other capabilities often needed but overlooked (e.g., expert facilitation, and geospatial capabilities such as GIS and LIDAR). Further, the project manager, John Monahan, has over 10 years experience in the Wenatchee-Entiat pilot basin supporting salmon recovery, habitat and watershed restoration, permitting and associated efforts. His experience working with the Project Partners, Wenatchee and Entiat River landowners, watershed Planning Unit members, permitting and regulatory agencies will be useful to the Project Partners’ development of a suitable Implementation Strategy.