FY 2000 proposal 199202601
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 |
|---|---|
| 199202601 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program |
| Proposal ID | 199202601 |
| Organization | Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program (GRMWP) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tom Macy / Lyle Kuchenbecker |
| Mailing address | 10901 Island Avenue La Grande, OR 97850 |
| Phone / email | 5419626590 / macyt@eou.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Continuation of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program to coordinate, plan and implement salmonid habitat restoration projects. |
| Target species | Snake River spring chinook salmon - summer steelhead - bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Wallowa County-Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan |
| 1994 | Stream & Riparian Conditions in the Grande Ronde Basin |
| 1994 | Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Operations-Action Plan |
| 1997 | Grande Ronde Basin Water Quality Monitoring |
| 1997 | Application of Ecosystem Diagnosis & Treatment Method to the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project |
| 1994 | 244 miles of fencing (riparian & cross fencing) |
| 1994 | 182 miles of road closures/obliteration |
| 1994 | 107 miles of road improvements for sediment reduction |
| 1994 | 107 miles of stream treated with instream work (includes 398 structures) |
| 1994 | 142 off-stream livestock water developments |
| 1994 | 28 fish passage improvement projects |
| 1994 | 13 irrigation diversion improvement projects |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9403000 | RASP in the Grande Ronde Basin | Grande Ronde Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Project (GREDT) provides a science-based methodology for habitat restoration planning and implementation. |
| 9403900 | Wallowa Basin Project | Provides for technical support and coordination from the Nez Perce Tribe. |
| 9702500 | Wallowa County/Nez Perce Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan Implementation | Support Nez Perce Tribe implementation of the Wallowa County-Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan. |
| 9703100 | Meadow Creek Instream Structure and Riparian Evaluation | Intensive habitat restoration monitoring. |
| 9202604 | Spring Chinook Early Life History | Provides critical life-history information to focus restoration efforts in the Grande Ronde Basin. |
| 8402500 | Joseph Creek, Grande Ronde River, Oregon (ODFW) | Partnership with Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. ODFW representatives serve on the GRMWP Technical Committee and the Board of Directors. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $49,000 | |
| Fringe | $17,000 | |
| Supplies | $7,500 | |
| NEPA | (NEPA, ESA consultation, etc. incl. w/personnel) | $0 |
| Travel | $6,500 | |
| Subcontractor | On-the-ground habitat restoration projects implemented with: Private Landow | $850,000 |
| $930,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $930,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $930,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private Landowners | In-kind labor, materials, cash | $280,000 | unknown |
| CTUIR | Technical support, in-kind labor, materials | $30,000 | unknown |
| NRCS | Technical support | $60,000 | unknown |
| USDA Forest Service | Technical support, in-kind labor/personnel, materials | $275,000 | unknown |
| ODFW | Technical support, in-kind labor/personnel, materials | $85,000 | unknown |
| Bureau of Reclamation | Technical support | $90,000 | unknown |
| Union & Wallowa SWCD’s | Technical support | $20,000 | unknown |
| Oregon DOT | Technical support, in-kind labor/personnel | $50,000 | unknown |
| Oregon Dept of Forestry | Technical support, in-kind labor/personnel | $24,000 | unknown |
| Union County PWD | Technical support, in-kind labor/personnel, materials | $110,000 | unknown |
| Wallowa County PWD | Technical support, in-kind labor/personnel, materials | $90,000 | unknown |
| Eastern Oregon University | Contract Administration | $36,000 | unknown |
| BPA | Funding | $930,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Landowner inability to cost-share work, technical support availability, ESA consultation delays.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on a better developed evaluation plan developed. In addition, the project should implement an evaluation procedure for its subbasin-wide impacts; this is only mentioned in the current proposal. The proposal must consider how local priorities match regional priorities and must develop a protocol for integrated monitoring and evaluation among the projects.Comments: This proposal requests funding to plan and support the comprehensive Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program and to undertake some specific habitat improvement activities. Leveraging of BPA funds is a strong point, as is the low personnel cost. The proposal suggests a comprehensive approach to habitat rehabilitation, with extensive planning for activities by location. It invokes a science-based methodology for planning and implementation of habitat restoration. Although the project history provides a substantial list of completed projects, the results of post-project monitoring are not provided. This proposal has good detail on the watershed council structure and process, but less detail on methods used and justification for those methods.
The structure of project presents some problems for scientific review. Proponents prepare proposals for individual projects, which requires good-faith understanding that individual projects will be of high quality. Project review is essential, but impossible for a reviewer not intimately familiar with all players to evaluate. There is a similar problem for monitoring. The proposal states that "basin-wide monitoring will facilitate adaptive management" and "project development will use monitoring information to implement those practices". However, the monitoring procedures, results, and evaluation are not presented for review. More description of (and formal evaluation of) the cumulative effects of all watershed council activities should be given. There needs to be an overall evaluation plan, at the subbasin-wide level. Additionally, more information is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of and rationale for such treatments as noxious weed control and tree density manipulation, which are said to improve upland watershed conditions.
Comment:
Comment:
Potential duplicative efforts were reduced and/or coordination was improved. Unclear objectives were more clearly defined.Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The proposal should demonstrate how the listed projects address the limiting factors and should explain the expected biological outcomes.Expensive project. Clearly explain the budget request and dollar amounts tied to the objectives. Project costs (including project maintenance) should be more specific. It is hard to tell if the costs are appropriate.
Water conservation projects should have guaranteed in-stream water right. The landowners benefit from improvements in irrigation equipment but the project should be providing public benefit in form of in-stream water right for the saved water.
Proposal exceeds the page limit.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,343,166 | $1,343,166 | $1,343,166 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website