FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199202601

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

Additional funds to go toward acquiring water leases to enhance stream flows.

Reason for change in scope

Split-season water leasing is now a viable option to enhance stream flows.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The ISRP also recommended in FY00 that continued funding should be contingent on the provision of a better description of the results of post-project monitoring, a formal evaluation of the cumulative effects of all watershed council activities, an overall evaluation plan, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of and rationale for such treatments as noxious weed control and tree density manipulation. In response, this proposal provides a very short description of project achievements over the past 5 years and a brief reference to effectiveness monitoring. No detail on the monitoring is provided. Effectiveness is evaluated as "visible on-the-ground success." This is an insufficient response to FY00 review comments. The project's 8 years of results should be presented in terms of measured responses in species and habitats. Additionally, the tasks presented under the 8 objectives for FY02 are completely absent of methods specific to those tasks. The short description of general methods provides insufficient detail to review; technical detail on methods should be provided. The future restoration projects and the criteria for selecting projects are not adequately defined. For example, how are rock barbs and vortex weirs expected to reduce sedimentation? How would manipulating tree density affect fish and wildlife? While the ISRP tour and briefings indicated that these proponents are well organized and enthusiastic, this proposal lacks the detail necessary for support. At present, the proposal seeks a million dollars without any specific projects or priorities identified. Further, the M&E component (tasks 1 and 2) are vague and must be very limited given the budget requested.

The proposal refers to the structured process the GRMWP has developed for project solicitation and implementation, to the thorough internal review process used by GRMWP for implementation, to "individual monitoring plans" that each project will have, and to the fact that O&M of each project is the responsibility of each PI. More detail on each of these processes should be presented. The response is effectively saying that review of projects takes place outside the FWP process. Project results are expressed in terms of number of projects completed rather than in quantitative indicators of watershed improvement.

In contrast, the site visit provided a more favorable picture of project implementation under the GRMWP. The team visited a wide variety of riparian restoration projects that represent an excellent leveraging of BPA funds. The project has an impressive amount of cost-share and coordination; overall, the costs are shared at about 50:50.

All projects appear to have some level of effectiveness monitoring, and there are basin-wide stream inventories and a water quality monitoring program. The hiring of a water quality coordinator is planned, after which some projects will be selected for intensive monitoring of water quality and other indicators on watershed health. Additionally, the GRMWP appears to have formed extremely effective working relationships with a wide range of subbasin interests.

Evaluative information on the projects and process used by the GRMWP should be presented in the proposal, not only for performance review purposes but also for internal evaluation and educational demonstration of this model watershed program. This project is a "model" watershed program and should lead by completion of a more informative proposal that would demonstrate gains from past investments and work. The GRMWP and other entities would benefit from a more formal evaluation of restoration progress.

Comment:

Comment:

Several comments in the response indicate that basin-scale monitoring is difficult because of the relatively small proportion of the basin comprised by projects under the GRMWP, and that it is difficult to relate changes in species production directly to changes in habitat resulting from projects. Despite these comments, the GRMWP contracted a review of monitoring and are implementing some of its recommendations. A monitoring coordinator is being hired and a basin-wide monitoring plan is planned through the use of "indicator watersheds."

Methods are now provided for habitat restoration objectives. The project solicitation and review process is now described in adequate detail. Target funding areas are based on watershed and habitat assessments. Projects are targeted at specific areas and are also the result of opportunities that arise to work with landowners. Details on the project review process, review criteria, and the technical review committee are also provided. The process as described is appropriate for critical review.

In future, the level of detail provided in this response should be provided in the proposal. The ISRP looks forward to evaluative information from the basin-wide monitoring plan in the FY03 proposal.

Comment:

Comments
What are the results of this habitat restoration project in terms of biological and physical attributes? The project's 8 years of results need to be evaluated in terms of measured responses in fish populations and habitats. Project results are currently expressed in terms of number of projects completed instead of in quantitative indicators of watershed improvement.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
150, 152, 153, 154

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
500

Comment:

The Model Watershed has been an integral part of the Council program since the early 1990s and sponsors numerous habitat restoration projects throughout the Grande Ronde basin. The Model Watershed requests funding in Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 to replace lost funding for engineering support work for water quantity enhancement activities that had previously come from the Bureau of Reclamation. Under the FCRPS Biological Opinion, the Grande Ronde was not designated a priority subbasin for the Bureau, so the Bureau apparently is reprogramming funding to its "priority" basins. Bonneville recommended funding the Model Watershed program as consistent with the development of subbasin planning and implementation of numerous RPAs.

The Council finds the loss of Bureau of Reclamation funding distressing, but recommends the funding requests for FY03 and FY04 to replace the lost Bureau funds as necessary to implement the Model Watershed's programs and projects. The Bureau should consult with the and conduct further budget discussions with the federal agencies to help ensure that the priority areas receive enhanced funding to comply with their Biological Opinion requirements. The Council requests notice, and an opportunity to discuss those situations, such as in the Grande Ronde, where funds previously committed are considered for reallocation to Biological Opinion" priority" basins.

Under the Council recommendation, the project would not increase its base budget until Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004. In Fiscal Year 2003, the Council recommends a $304,685 increase over the base budget.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website