FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199702500
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199702500 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199702500 Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 199702500 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Blue Mountain: Grande Ronde Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Blue Mountain: Grande Ronde Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Implement The Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan |
| Proposal ID | 199702500 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Don Bryson |
| Mailing address | 612 S.W. 2nd Enterprise, Or 97828 |
| Phone / email | 5414260119 / bryson@oregontrail.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jaime Pinkham |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Maintenance and/or restoration of salmon habitat through cooperative and voluntary methods is a stated goal in the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan. Funding of this project will help to implement the Plan. |
| Target species | chinook, steelhead, bull trout, other resident native fish, native wildlife |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The project is located throughout both the lower Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins in Wallowa and Asotin counties. | ||
| 45.52 | -117.76 | Grande Ronde Subbasin |
| 45.4 | -116.87 | Imnaha Subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 151 |
| Habitat RPA Action 153 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Seeded major slumps in the north part of Wallowa County following the January 1,1997 rain on snow event. |
| 1997 | Beak Consultants contract to develop a bull trout position paper for Wallowa County in reference to the proposed listing and for a possible countywide Habitat Conservation Plan. |
| 1998 | Finalized the Lostine IFIM study and report. |
| 1998 | Relocated 0.36 miles of road out of the riparian zone in the Lightning Creek watershed, a tributary to the Imnaha River. |
| 1998 | Streambank protection and habitat improvement project on the lower Imnaha River. |
| 1999 | Provided cost-share to continue operation of seven mainstem flow gages in the Lostine and Wallowa rivers and Bear Creek. |
| 1999 | Cost-shared printing copies for peer review of updated County/Tribe Plan. |
| 2000 | Cost-shared purchase of duplexing color printer with OSU/ Wallowa Extension to print copies of County/Tribe Plan. This will reduce costs from $90.00/copy for commercial printing to approximately $14.00/copy. |
| 2000 | Provided cost-share to continue operation of seven mainstem flow gages in the Lostine and Wallowa rivers and Bear Creek. |
| 2000 | Contracted for help surveying (longitudinal and x-sections) 3/4 miles of Prairie Creek to facilitate project design and proposal development for a riparian restoration project. |
| 2001 | Provided cost-share to continue operation of seven mainstem flow gages in the Lostine and Wallowa rivers and Bear Creek. |
| 2001 | Provided cost-share for a weed abatement project in the lower Grande Ronde River corridor with the USFS, BLM, Wallowa Resources, and private landowners. |
| 2001 | Contracted for preliminary design of a riparian restoration project in Prairie Creek. |
| 2001 | Contracted for a survey and preliminary design for the replacement of three culverts (fish passage barriers) on Grouse Creek. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199403900 | Watershed Restoration Planner | Oversees project #199702500 (this project) |
| 199202601 | Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program | Uses information developed by the Model Watershed Program and keeps the Model Watershed Program informed of habitat projects implemented by this project. |
| 198805301 | Northeast Oregon Hatchery Project | Provides the habitat/natural production tie. |
| 199604400 | Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program | Provides the habitat/production tie in the Lostine River, the stream in Wallowa County included in the Captive Brood Program. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan. | a) Coordinate between the Wallowa County Court, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Wallowa County Natural Resource Advisory Committee. | on going | $2,175 | |
| b) Determine which expenses associated with implementing the County/Tribe Plan are appropriate for funding under this project. | on going | $0 | ||
| 2. Maintain and /or restore salmon habitat and watershed conditions in Wallowa County. | a) Work with the Wallowa County NRAC’s Standing Committee to determine which types of projects are fundable under this project. | on going | $0 | |
| b) Work with land owners, ODFW, NRCS, USFS, and Wallowa County Public Works to develop specific project proposals. | on going | $0 | ||
| c) Use the Wallowa County Natural Resource Advisory Committee’s Technical Committee to review project proposals and then, if approved, fund them. | on going | $0 | ||
| d) Contract for survey work and preliminary engineering sufficient for writing project proposals. | on going | $10,000 | Yes | |
| e) Purchase equipment as needed. | 1 | $2,000 | ||
| 3. Foster watershed stewardship through education. | a. Work with the Wallowa Soil and Water Conservation District. | on going | $0 | |
| b. Work with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. | on going | $0 | ||
| c. Work with local schools. | on going | $500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Maintain and /or restore salmon habitat and watershed conditions in Wallowa County. | 2003 | 2006 | $48,700 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $12,175 | $12,175 | $12,175 | $12,175 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Control noxious weeds in Wallowa County. | a) Provide cost-share for a weed abatement program in the lower Grande Ronde River corridor. | on going | $5,000 | Yes |
| 2. Maintain and/or enhance salmon habitat and watershed conditions in Wallowa County. | a) Fund small projects developed through cooperative efforts between private landowners, ODF, ODFW, SWCD, NRCS, and the Wallowa County NRAC, and the NPT. | on going | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Control noxious weeds in Wallowa County. | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
| 2. Maintain and/or enhance salmon habitat and watershed conditions in Wallowa County. | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Maintain seven mainstem stream flow gages in Bear Creek, the Lostine River, and the middle Wallowa River. | a) Cost-share operation of the gages with OWEB and the GRMWP. | on going | $21,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintain seven mainstem stream flow gages in Bear Creek, the Lostine River, and the middle Wallowa River. | 2003 | 2006 | $84,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $21,000 | $21,000 | $21,000 | $21,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: No personnel funded under this proposal. | $0 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | Laser level for stream survey work, teaching aids | $2,500 |
| Travel | vehicle lease, per diem, and air travel | $0 |
| Indirect | 5% | $2,175 |
| Subcontractor | engineering | $10,000 |
| Other | Operation of stream gages, implementation of small projects, weed control project. | $31,000 |
| $45,675 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $45,675 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $45,675 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $41,750 |
| % change from forecast | 9.4% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Addition of survey work and engineering.
Reason for change in scope
The need for up-front money for survey work and engineering before projects can be written and presented to funding agencies. These projects are larger than what NRCS engineeers would normally work on due in part to limited NRCS engineering staff time.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| OWEB | Cost-share of gage operation | $21,235 | cash |
| GRMWP | Cost-share of gage operation | $21,235 | cash |
| BLM, USFS, Wallowa Resources, private landowners. | Cost-share weed abatement program. | $61,000 | cash |
| Habitat project applicant. | minimum 25% cost-share (cash or in-kind) | $2,500 | cash |
| Nez Perce Tribe | Writing project proposals, field time, NEPA and BA's as needed, oversight, etc. | $1,000 | cash |
| NRCS | Engineering expertise | $1,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A combined response with project 199403900 is needed. The response should address issues from the FY00 review.This project is operated through the County for the purposes of a lower (5%) indirect cost assessment. Funds under this project are used for small opportunistic grants to landowners to reconcile the different funding cycles of OWEB and BPA. According to the presentation, the landowner contributes a minimum of 25% to projects as cost-share.
The project will change direction in 2001 by putting more emphasis on selected watersheds, provide up-front money for project development, (survey work, engineering design), install stream gages, and continue to find small projects that fall outside the normal funding cycle. The proposal should provide information about how funds were allocated in the past year and the level of cost share received in each project.
Overall, the project seems like an effective leveraging of different sources of money for small projects that have a measurable impact. However, The proposal as it stands is not amenable to scientific review. The response should develop technical justification for the methods used, better describe how projects are prioritized and selected, and develop a better comprehensive evaluation procedure.
There are opportunities for monitoring in these small projects that would generate useful information. For example, the presentation included a description of Prairie Creek that formerly had a gravel bottom but now has a mud bottom. Habitat monitoring is planned for this project but no biological monitoring is planned. Biological monitoring should also be done from the project inception in order to track the level of changes over time, as the stream bottom changes from mud to gravel, and as erosion sources are fixed. Baseline information will allow a comparison to later changes. Restoration of these deeply eroded banks in projects in other subbasins has tended to be very aggressive. Such active restoration projects can be extremely expensive. Is it possible for small monies and efforts to reclaim Prairie Creek?
With regard to Prairie Creek, there seems to be over-concern about high, bare-soil stream banks at the outsides of meander bends. They are undoubtedly the source of some fine sediment, but much more probably comes from overland runoff. The banks will heal naturally if given the chance. Rather than fighting streambank erosion directly (as was implied in the presentation), the project should concentrate on removing human-generated disturbances of the watershed and riparian area, and should let the stream migrate at will within a revegetated riparian zone—a process in which some high, bare banks will persist, and some new ones may be created, although the total amount of rapidly eroding bank will undoubtedly decline markedly in the long run via natural vegetative healing. The channel-narrowing effect of riparian vegetation will, within a few years, concentrate current so as to scour away the mud described as now inundating streambed gravel. The project could benefit by guidance from a genuine fluvial geomorphologist. It shouldn't rely on ideas that non-geomorphologists pick up at short courses.
Comment:
This project addresses RPA 400. The NMFS expressed concern about the lack of biological monitoring activities to address fish population responses to habitat activities. Although there is a desire to have biological, fish related, monitoring variables to measure the impact of habitat improvements, it is very difficult to develop a statistical based sampling design that is able to accomplish that.Comment:
Not fundable. The response is inadequate. The response is fairly uniformly negative to ISRP review comments. In response to the review comment that the proposal should provide information about the past year's allocation of funds and the level of cost share received in each project, the response indicates only that there is no place on the BPA form to provide the requested cost-share information. This information could logically be included in the narrative portion of the proposal that discusses the cost-share approach, in a summary table.Preliminary review comments indicated that there are monitoring opportunities in small projects to provide useful information. The response is negative about providing any level of monitoring except for monitoring expected outcomes of each project. Additional monitoring is seen as an unnecessary expense.
Proponents indicated that in 2001 the project will put more emphasis on selected watersheds, provide up-front money for project development, to install stream gages, and to continue to find small projects that fall outside the normal funding cycle. Reviewers noted that although the project may provide effective funding leverage for small projects, the response should develop technical justification for the methods used, better describe how projects are prioritized and selected, and develop a better comprehensive evaluation procedure. This information is not provided.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUMainly a planning project, so most benefits are indirect. To extent that project will maintain and/or restore salmon habitat through cooperative and voluntary methods in the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan, should improve survival if habitat restoration has intended effect.
Comments
A small portion of funds may result in project implementation consistent with other RPA actions, but most involve planning consistent with Action 154. Project proponents need to better describe how the suite of small restoration projects will be prioritized and selected, develop technical justification for the proposed methods, develop an M&E program that includes biological response monitoring in addition to habitat monitoring. What performance standards will be measured?
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
This project should be evaluated in the context of its role in the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. This is the implementation funding link for 199403900, Watershed Restoration Planner, and should be considered for funding if the planner position is funded. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154
Comment:
Comment:
Comment: