FY07-09 proposal 199202601
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program Habitat Restoration - Planning, Coordination and Implementation |
Proposal ID | 199202601 |
Organization | Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation |
Short description | The project coordinates BPA funded restoration activities in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins working with tribes, agencies and landowners. The project annually implements 10-20 habitat restoration projects. |
Information transfer | The Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW) maintains a database of all watershed/habitat restoration activities implemented in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins by all entities from 1985 to the present. The database is tied to a GIS. Data is uploaded into the Oregon Plan Bi-Annual Report. Reports and summarized data are available on the GRMW Website at www.grmw.org. Information in the database is used extensively by partners of the GRMW to demonstrate the cooperative on-going restoration efforts in the subbasin and to report accomplishments to BPA and other entities. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Lyle Kuchenbecker | Grande Ronde Model Watershed | lyle@grmw.org |
All assigned contacts | ||
Lyle Kuchenbecker | Grande Ronde Model Watershed | lyle@grmw.org |
Jeff Oveson | Grande Ronde Model Watershed | jeff@grmw.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Entire Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins, Union and Wallowa Counties. 5,265 sq.mi. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Snake River Fall ESUprimary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESU
secondary: Pacific Lamprey
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
secondary: Interior Redband Trout
secondary: Mountain Whitefish
secondary: All Wildlife
Additional: Wildlife species using riparian habitats
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|---|
2005 | 2005 7 Projects, 7 with BPA Funding, $166,521 BPA Funds, $236,642 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
2004 | 2004 14 Projects, 13 with BPA Funding, $653,693 BPA Funds, $1,103,142 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
2003 | 2003 1 Project, 1 with BPA Funding, $127,001 BPA Funds, $0 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
2002 | 2002 12 Projects, 11 with BPA Funding, $399,087 BPA Funds, $937,031 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
2001 | 2001 19 Projects, 18 with BPA Funding, $344,473 BPA Funds, $638,831 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
2000 | 2000 20 Projects, 19 with BPA Funding, $798,327 BPA Funds, $2,076,657 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
1999 | 1999 27 Projects, 26 with BPA Funding, $ 646,818 BPA Funds, $1,536,240 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
1998 | 1998 32 Projects, 11 with BPA Funding, $538,747 BPA Funds, $1,477,165 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
1997 | 1997 44 Projects, 38 with BPA Funding, $1,007,195 BPA Funds, $1,144,640 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
1996 | 1996 50 Projects, 41 with BPA Funding, $721,271 BPA Funds, $1,518,007 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments |
1995 | 1995 93 Projects, 7 with BPA Funding, $273,272 BPA Funds, $5,786,177 cost share, See Narrative Section "Project History" for detailed work accomplishments |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
BPA | 198402500 | Ne Oregon Habitat Projects | GRMW & ODFW staff coordinate restoration project planning, landowner involvement, funding acquisition, ESA compliance, permitting and implementation. ODFW staff provide technical assistance to GRMWP Project. |
BPA | 199202604 | Life Studies of Spring Chinook | Project 199202604 helps identify critical habitat needs of juvenile chinook to assist GRMW staff in targeting restoration opportunities. |
BPA | 199608300 | Grand Ronde Watershed Restor | GRMW & CTUIR staff coordinate restoration project planning, landowner involvement, funding acquisition, ESA compliance, permitting and implementation. CTUIR staff provide technical assistance to GRMWP Project. |
OWEB - State | 204-049 | Grande Ronde Model WS Program | OWEB project 204-049 provides partial administrative funding for GRMW staff. GRMW staff provide technical review of OWEB restoration grant applications. |
OWEB - State | 204-434 | End Cr/Rice Fish Habitat & Wet | BPA funds acquired through GRMWP Project . GRMWP acquired OWEB cost share funds. |
OWEB - State | 205-095 | Wallowa River/McDaniel Habitat | BPA funds acquired through GRMW. |
BPA | 200002100 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites-Oregon Ladd Marsh WMA | GRMW staff will assist ODFW staff with landowner contacts and coordinate projects developed under this project with GRMWP Project activities. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Channel condition | To have both a 1)distribtion of channel types as well as 2) a distribution of habitat conditions within those channel types that are as close as possible to the historic condition of these two variables. | Grande Ronde | The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. |
Low flow conditions | To enhance low flow conditions such that they mimic the natural hydrograph. | Grande Ronde | The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. |
Riparian function | To have a distribution of riparian communities having 1)a species composition, 2)size, and 3)structure that is appropriate for the channel type and ecoregion. | Grande Ronde | The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. |
Sediment conditions | To have a distribution of sediment type and size structure that is appropriate for the channel type, geology and ecoregion. | Grande Ronde | The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coordination | Coordinate habitat restoration activities in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins | Includes all GRMWP coordination with resource management agencies, regulatory agencies, potential funding sources and landowners. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $143,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Coordination | Regional Coordination | Coordinate in-basin acivities with agencies and entities outside the Grande Ronde Subbasin such as OWEB, regulatory agencies, state and federal representatives and NPCC | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $71,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Outreach and Education | Coordinate community outreach activities related to habitat protection/enhancement/restoration | Includes publication of quarterly newsletter, organization of workshops, river cleanups, coodination with agency educational activities, newspaper articlesand project tours | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $35,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of general public reached: Quarter newsletter, approx. 8000 copies per issue |
||||
Identify and Select Projects | Plan, coordinate, develop and review restoration projects for BPA funding | Solicit habitat project proposals, conduct pre-proposal site reviews, coordinate technical site reviews, develop project proposals | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $219,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Coordination | Provide restoration project development technical assistance to landowners | Coordinate and provide technical assistance to landowners directly, subcontract professional services, engage agency biologists. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $49,693 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | Manage & Administer GRMW Sponsored Habitat Restoration Projects | Conduct all administrative functions and project management activities, including administration of subcontracts associated with habitat restoration projects and contracts sponsored by the GRMWP. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $429,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Annual Report | Produce GRMWP Project Annual Report | Produce annual reports as per Pisces | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $28,600 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Status Report | Produce GRMWP Project Quarterly Status Reports | Produce quarterly status reports for project #199202601 | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $48,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Annual Report | Produce Annual Reports for GRMWP Sponsored Restoration Projects | Produce annual and/or completion reports for GRMWP habitat restoration projects. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $38,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Annual Report | Produce Quarterly Status Reports for GRMW Sponsored Restoration Projects | Produce quarterly Pisces reports for habitat projects | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $95,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Maintain GRMWP Habitat Restoration Project Database | Solicit, Input, update and validate restoration project data for all Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin restoration projects | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $246,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Disseminate Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin restoration project data and maps | Provide Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin restoration project data and maps to agencies and interested parties. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $40,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Conduct ESA Consultation, Obtain CR Clearance, Obtain Permits | Complete biological assessments, cultural resource surveys and NEPA compliance. Obtain Oregon SHPO clearance and all necessary DSL, COE and DEQ permits for GRMWP sponsored projects. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $55,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Design and/or Specifications | Complete Restoration Project Engineering | Subcontract professional engineering services as necessary to provide engineering technical assistance, preliminary designs, final designs and contract inspection for construction projects. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $225,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel | Restore historic channels | Reconstruct new channels, fill channelized ditches, reconnect remnant historic channels | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $430,000 |
Biological objectives Channel condition Riparian function |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 18.75 miles |
||||
Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Install LWD, root-wad revetments, grade control structures | The addition of structural elements in conjunction with channel reconstruction to stabilize new channels or provide habitat complexity. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $325,000 |
Biological objectives Channel condition Riparian function |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated: 18.75 |
||||
Install Fence | Construct Riparian Exclusion Fencing | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $110,000 |
Biological objectives Riparian function Sediment conditions |
Metrics * # of miles of fence: 12 miles |
||||
Plant Vegetation | Plant vegetation | Plant trees, shrubs and sedges in riparian areas, usually in conjunction with livestock management activites or channel reconstruction | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $425,000 |
Biological objectives Riparian function |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 960 acres |
||||
Develop Alternative Water Source | Develop Off-Stream Livestock Water Sources | Develop off-stream livestock water sources, includes spring development, trough and fencing to reduce livestock impacts to riparian areas. Often used in conjunction with riparian exclosure fencing. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $95,000 |
Biological objectives Riparian function Sediment conditions |
Metrics |
||||
Install Fish Passage Structure | Replace, modify or install fish passage structures | Improve/reestablish fish passage through culvert replacement, irrigation diversion structure removal or modification | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $940,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: yes * # of miles of habitat accessed: 5 miles total restriction * # of miles of habitat accessed: 28 miles partial restriction * If installing a ladder, does the ladder meet NOAA specs for attraction flow, pool dimensions, jump height, etc?: yes |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | GRMWP Project staff, Executive Director, Program Manager, Database Manager, Monitoring Coordinator, Receptionist, Contract Planner | $282,106 | $288,410 | $296,781 |
Fringe Benefits | GRMWP Project staff, Executive Director, Program Manager, Database Manager, Monitoring Coordinator, Receptionist | $75,062 | $77,314 | $79,633 |
Supplies | General office and field supplies, educational materials, conference/workshop supplies, media announcements | $9,200 | $9,500 | $9,800 |
Travel | GRMWP Project staff travel, local and regional | $4,400 | $4,500 | $4,700 |
Overhead | Office lease, vehicle lease/mileage, internet/phone services, computer hardware/software upgrades, contracted computer services | $97,686 | $100,600 | $103,600 |
Other | BPA funds allocated to habitat projects coordinated, developed, reviewed and approved through the GRMWP Project | $877,601 | $869,045 | $858,355 |
Totals | $1,346,055 | $1,349,369 | $1,352,869 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $4,048,293 |
Total work element budget: | $4,048,293 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
County & City government, EOU | In-kind services | $30,000 | $55,000 | $55,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
CTUIR | In-kind services and technical assistance | $40,000 | $55,000 | $55,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
CTUIR, NPT | Habitat project funding | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | Cash | Under Development |
Federal Aviation Administration | Habitat project funding | $0 | $136,000 | $0 | Cash | Confirmed |
Landowners, farmers, ranchers | Habitat project funding | $65,000 | $65,000 | $65,000 | Cash | Under Development |
Landowners, farmers, ranchers | In-kind services | $120,000 | $120,000 | $120,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
NOAA, USFWS, USFS, BOR | Habitat project funding | $125,000 | $125,000 | $125,000 | Cash | Under Development |
NOAA, USFWS, USFS, BOR, FAA, BLM | In-kind services and technical assistance | $205,000 | $205,000 | $205,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
ODFW, ODF, OWRD | In-kind services, technical assistance | $70,000 | $70,000 | $70,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
ODFW, OWEB, ODOT, ODF | Habitat project funding | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | Cash | Under Development |
OWEB | Habitat project funding | $78,000 | $0 | $0 | Cash | Confirmed |
OWEB | Habitat project funding | $0 | $76,000 | $0 | Cash | Under Review |
Wallowa Resources | Habitat project funding | $30,000 | $30,000 | $30,000 | Cash | Under Development |
Wallowa Resources | In-kind services and technical assistance | $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
Totals | $983,000 | $1,157,000 | $945,000 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $1,393,455 FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,393,455 |
Comments: GRMWP Requests 3% annual increases beyond FY 2009. This is to continue current level of habitat restoration work. |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date:
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
199202601 GRMW ISRP Response.doc | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$1,183,849 | $1,183,849 | $1,183,849 | $3,551,547 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$1,183,849 | $1,183,849 | $1,183,849 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
Comments: ISRP fundable qualified. Sponsor should complete report by March 07 as called for in ISRP recommendation. Funding in 08 and 09 contingent upon favorable review by ISRP and Council. |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: There is every indication that the project has been a success so far. An impressive number of enhancement projects have been undertaken, and the record of cooperative work among government and private entities is excellent. Nevertheless, there are several issues that the sponsors need to address. The proposal lacks a comprehensive assessment of the progress of each enhancement project to date, in terms of how well the projects are achieving their objectives (see Project History comments). While implementation and effectiveness monitoring of individual restoration projects is required, the sponsors have not attempted monitoring on larger spatial scales (e.g., stream reach, tributary, subbasin) to assess the cumulative effect of multiple restoration projects on habitat and population responses. They discuss the real problems involved with monitoring action effectiveness at large spatial scales and over the long time periods that may be required to clearly see results. Unfortunately, the sponsors leave the impression that they do not know whether habitat and populations have benefited from the expenditure of $22 million ($6 million from BPA) since 1992. The sponsors seem to be focused on why large-scale monitoring can’t be done rather than making a serious effort to address the problem. The sponsors need to make a serious effort to develop a meaningful strategy for effectiveness monitoring at larger spatial scales. Communication with other projects addressing similar issues such as the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and the NOAA-Fisheries ISEMP could provide a starting point. A workshop also could be beneficial. Have the sponsors considered the project's function in adaptive management of the Grande Ronde basin? Could the sponsors provide a more detailed description of their proposal review procedure (review criteria, expertise involved, etc.)? Technical and scientific background: The problem is well defined. Salmon have declined precipitously in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha watersheds. The sponsors propose to coordinate habitat restoration actions to recover declining stocks. EDT was used to examine possible restoration scenarios. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Grand Ronde and Imnaha subbasin plans serve as the guiding documents for the diverse projects coordinated by the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (GRMWP). The proposal is linked to the Snake River Recovery Plan and the Oregon Plan. A major strength of the sponsors program is that it is a partnership that includes tribes, elected officials, state and federal natural resource management agencies, a state university, environmental groups, agricultural groups and economic development. Relationships to other projects: The sponsors work with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and various key state and federal. The proposed work is closely related to four projects funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program. Project history: The sponsors have completed an impressive number of enhancement projects primarily targeting priority watersheds as identified in the Grande Ronde subbasin plan. They have received substantial funding for this work not only from BPA but also from numerous state, federal, and private entities. Their success is due in part to the excellent working relationships they appear to have established with government and private entities. A concern is that the sponsors provide little documentation of the progress of the projects under their direction. Because this project has been funded by BPA for a long period and considerable monitoring data should have accrued, some documentation of project progress is essential above and beyond a listing of actions taken such as the number of projects undertaken and the number of instream structures installed. Detailed documentation of the progress of individual projects in this proposal is unrealistic because of the large number of projects. As an alternative, for each project, the sponsors could indicate the priority watershed in which it is located, project objectives, limiting factors and the priority restoration actions (Table 6) that have been undertaken, and metrics for evaluation. Table 9 provides a template for this summary. The sponsors could provide an indication of the changes that have occurred at the project site (e.g., increased pool frequency and depth, reestablishment of willow, increased number of fish using pools, increased spawning habitat, no change as yet, etc.) and an overall, objective assessment of the progress of the project relative to the information provided above. Finally, they should provide an objective evaluation of the status of data analysis for each project. The sponsors point out the problems in measuring fish population responses to habitat improvement. It may not take as long to see population trends as the sponsors think (maybe 5 to 10 years rather than the "many years" that is written). Objectives: The objectives-strategies section is clear and logical for the most part. The sponsors provide priority strategies, geographic priorities, an explanation of the process for project selection, and a table of projects under development. The objectives section could be improved by analyzing needs (watershed analysis) before launching into treatments. Apparently some (perhaps much) of this has been done, but it is not clear where in the sequence the watershed analysis is supposed to take place. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are generally but sufficiently described for a project of this type. The sponsors will employ both well-established passive (preferred) and active enhancement strategies, and they provide a reasonable discussion of the kinds of conditions for which each of these strategies will be employed. In objectives and strategies, the sponsors made thoughtful distinction between long-term recovery (curing of human-generated causes of problems) and short-term, symptomatic treatment (fixes) of habitat deficiencies. The proposal would be improved if the tables (Tables 8 and 9) and other statements of methods were to distinguish explicitly between remedies of causes and fixing of symptoms. This distinction would help to keep program's personnel more mindful of this important aspect as the program progresses. Monitoring and evaluation: Project-specific implementation and basic effectiveness monitoring is required of each project coordinated by the GRMWP. The project has deferred monitoring of the cumulative effectiveness of multiple projects at larger spatial scales such as the stream reach, tributary, or subbasin. It would seem that the GRMWP should be the focal point for development of an adaptive management program. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities are sufficient to allow the sponsors to meet project objectives. The personnel have demonstrated their ability to manage the project. Information transfer: The sponsors do not provide a concise discussion of how information will be transferred but, because of the cooperative nature of the project, there is every reason to believe it will be transferred adequately, at least locally. Reports are required for each project. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The projects should benefit focal species but the sponsors did not give detailed information on the actual benefits accrued to this point. The projects are primarily relate to habitat improvement and should benefit non-focal species.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The sponsors have satisfactorily addressed the ISRP’s concerns and we thank them for clarifying several important issues regarding the operation of the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program (GRMWP). The ISRP reiterates that the GRMWP has been highly successful in implementing projects and has an outstanding record of cooperative work among government and private entities. A central ISRP concern about the GRMWP was that the proposal did not provide an adequate summary of project effectiveness and monitoring. The sponsors make the point that compiling the results of 150 projects would yield benefits but is precluded due to fiscal limitations related to the 5% budget limitation imposed by BPA. The ISRP appreciates the sponsor’s willingness to undertake this assessment, which apparently would largely require compilation of existing records, and encourages the NPCC and BPA to provide funds for this effort. This expenditure would be appropriate because the GRMWP is the largest program of its type in the basin -- truly a “model” as the name implies -- and the assessment would allow a better evaluation of the success of the program. Qualification: The sponsors should develop a report presenting quantitative and qualitative results to date pertaining to the effectiveness of the projects under their domain, a general summary and conclusions about overall project effectiveness, and the application of the results to management. The sponsors should report positive results as well as results from projects that to date may not yet have produced significant effects. This effort should be funded by BPA and reviewed by the ISRP in FY07. The response of the sponsors of project # 199608300 may provide some guidance for preparation of the report.