FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 198402500

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

Increased budget to reflect additional costs due to: 1) NEPA, 2) Update monitoring program, 3) Reestablish Tech II position in Enterprise (approx. 50% of projects are in Joseph & Wallowa subbasins), this position was cut in 1993 when it was believed the project would go into an O&M mode but we have implemented several new projects in these subbasin's since then, and landowner interest continues to be high, 4) The project has operated in a fully phased mode (P&D, Imp, O&M, and M&E) for 16 the last years, but has not received implementation dollars. This resulted in increased overall costs, inefficiencies and lost opportunities with landowners when pursuing alternate funds. We will continue to pursue cost sharing opportunities, but we are asking for moderate levels of implementation dollars that will allow us to provide quicker, more cost-effective service to landowners, 6) Unavoidable increases in M&E, compliance inspections and reporting requirements from BPA, USACE, NMFS, USFWS.

Reason for change in scope

no change in scope

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The technical background provided in the proposal is again excellent, providing good explanation of the problems and the choice of approaches to address those problems. The project has strong ties with other projects. The project history is thorough and includes summaries of monitoring results. In response to earlier ISRP comments, some evaluation of results is also presented. The examples of monitoring are limited by the types of data presented (i.e., max and min values), but the data have apparently been collected.

Reference is also made to more extensive evaluations in preparation. The discussion of project results and evaluation provides detail on methods to be used to meet the 7 objectives. New monitoring is also described. The adaptive management implications section is quite a good discussion of approaches taken and modified after evaluating results. However, inconsistencies between the proposal and presentation should be reconciled. Although the monitoring plan presented in the proposal is adequate, the responses made during the presentation to questions about monitoring raised questions as to whether monitoring, and especially evaluation, is actually being done.

Comment:

As a result, the sponsors have proposed to reallocate personnel funds in the proposed 2002 budget by shifting funds that would normally be dedicated to administrative activities such as program supervision and clerical assistance to allow for the development of a contract to compile, review, analyze and publish the results of their habitat restoration efforts. The sponsors have initiated efforts to identify an individual to perform the analysis. Reviewers indicated that in FY2000 project sponsors agreed to that any new work would go through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program rather than directly through BPA. Potential cost savings if implementation activities are processed through the GRMWP.

Comment:

In response to earlier ISRP comments, more detail on the monitoring data is provided and some evaluation of results is also presented, although the examples are limited by the data presented (i.e., max and min values). The ISRP was encouraged by the response and supports the effort to analyze existing data in this long-running project. As noted by the P.I., much more data have been collected than have been analyzed. The frustration of trying to balance landowner cooperation and implementation with the collection of monitoring data and evaluation of monitoring results is evident.

The P.I. proposes to do some internal reallocation of funds to support a contract for analysis of monitoring data. The ISRP recommends additional funding support for up to two years to hire a data analyst with strong quantitative skills dedicated fulltime to the analysis of the past 15 years' monitoring data. The analyst should produce a database on historical information and a report on the adequacy of the existing data. The results of this analysis should be clearly and comprehensively presented in the next proposal.

The evaluation need, however, is not limited to the analysis of the large amounts of data that are being collected and stockpiled. It also includes using the results of these analyses in an annual evaluation of progress toward meeting project goals. It is still not clear why summaries of progress are not routinely prepared using an index approach.

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

Comment:

Comments
Project uses three strategies in approach to stream restoration: (1) habitat protection through signing of riparian leases, cooperative agreements or easements; (2) passive restoration of marginal habitat; and (3) active restoration of severely degraded streams. Protective measures include excluding grazing, timber harvest, road construction, etc. Project will implement Action Item 153 if permanent or long term (>15 years) easement is acquired. Easement should be consistent with Oregon CREP. Active remediation techniques include using plantings, soil bioengineering, instream structures (e.g., LWD), or whole channel alterations. Project is NOT providing the quantitative analysis of biological or physical changes resulting from 17 years of multiple habitat restoration projects (on 62.2 miles of stream) necessary to gauge beneficial effects to fish populations.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
152, 153, 154

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153)

Comment:

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ongoing project would protect and enhance streams on private lands in the Grande Ronde basin. New work proposed in the project included the enhancement of the monitoring and evaluation component of the project, stressed as a need by the ISRP, and new stream enhancement activities, both passive and active, on several creeks within the basin. Bonneville rated the project as fundable for implementation of RPAs 152, 153 and 154.

The Council supports the additional funding beyond the general 3.4% increase to address the ISRP's recommendation to boost the monitoring capacity for this longstanding project within the fish and wildlife program. The Council also supports the additional stream enhancement work as a priority for ODFW, with some exceptions. In keeping with Council policy to support new work that responds to the general funding considerations outlined in programmatic issue 2 above, the Council would recommend not funding Planning and Design budget tasks 3g and h, and Construction and Implementation budget Objectives 2 and 3 prior to subbasin planning, as that new work is does not respond to any of the funding considerations approved by the Council.

The Council would recommend increasing the budget by $67,467 over the FY01 plus 3.4 percent base budget.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website