Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198402500

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in Grande Ronde Basin Streams
BPA Project Proposal Number 198402500
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Business acronym (if appropriate) ODFW

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Tim Bailey
Mailing Address 73471 Mytinger Lane
City, State, Zip Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone 5412762344
Fax 5412764414
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Blue Mountain
Subbasin Grande Ronde
Short Description Protect and enhance fish habitat in selected streams on private lands in the Grande Ronde Basin to improve instream and riparian habitat diversity, and increase natural production of wild salmonids.
Target Species Summer Steelhead, Spring Chinook, Redband Trout, Bull Trout

Project Location

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 2.1, 7.6A.2, 7.6B.1, 7.6B.3, 7.6B.4, 7.6B.5, 7.6B.6, 7.6C, 7.6D, 7.7, 7.8D.1, 7.8E.1, 7.10
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References 1) Grande Ronde River Subbasin- Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan, Columbia Basin System Planning, ODFW, CTUIR, NPT, WDF, WDW. 1990. 2) Grande Ronde River Basin: Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Improvement Iniatives, CTUIR, 1983. 3) Grande Ronde River Basin Fish Habitat Improvement Implementation Plan, ODFW, 1988. 4) UGR River Anadromous Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan, USFS, PNFRES, ODFW, CRITFC, CTUIR, NPT, OSU, 1992. 5) CTUIR - Columbia Basin Salmon Policy, 1995. 6) NMFS-Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (8/97 draft), Chap.4, pg. 61, 1997. 7) Stream and Riparian Conditions in the Grande Ronde Basin: A Report to the G.R. Model Watershed Board, Clearwater Biostudies, 1993. 8) Grande Ronde Model Watershed Operations - Action Plan, 1994. 9) Application of the EDT Method to the G.R. Model Watershed Project, Mobrand Biometrics, 1997. 10) MYIP for the Protection, Restoration & Enhancement of Col. River Basin F&W Resources, CBFWA, 1997.

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1998 Constructed 101 miles of riparian livestock exclosure fencing protecting 59.6 miles of stream and 1,394 acres of riparian habitat. Planted 76,195 riparian trees or shrubs, and installed 2,527 instream structures.

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
8402100 John Day Basin Habitat Improvement - ODFW Shares funding and personnel to implement and maintain projects on Camas Creek. No
9128 Upper Grande Ronde Habitat Enhancement - CTUIR Shares funding and personnel to implement and maintain the McCoy Meadows Restoration Project and other new projects. No
9402700 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Projects - GRMWP Partially funded the proposed projects. No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Restore riparian vegetation species diversity and community structure so the positive interaction of the stream, riparian zone and floodplain perpetuate and maintain normative ecological and physical processes. a. Work cooperatively with 6 private landowners to procure long term riparian lease agreements on Meadow Creek, Hurricane Creek, Whiskey Creek (Wallowa R. tributary) and the Lostine River that protect habitat in the highest priority areas.
1. b. Analyze existing information available from: watershed assessment documents; from local district fisheries biologists; the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and others. Prioritize new projects.
1. c. Develop project plans/designs on 4 projects, develop contract documents and obtain neccesary permits.
1. d. Conduct onsite preparation activities on 4 projects (6 landowners), prepare contracts, and obtain any permits needed to gain access and complete onsite work .
1. e. Construct 4 off-site spring developments to encourage livestock utilization of uplands and divert grazing pressure away from streams and riparian areas.
2. Improve instream habitat diversity and streambank stability by constructing biengineering treatments, instream structures and placing large wood. a. Work cooperatively with 6 private landowners to procure long term riparian lease agreements on Meadow Creek, Hurricane Creek, Whiskey Creek (Wallowa R. tributary) and the Lostine River that protect habitat in the highest priority areas.
2. b. Survey/assess streams to identify work areas, plan work, layout and mark specific sites where bank stabilization and instream structures will be implemented.
2. c. Develop construction schedules, engineer project specifications, advertise for construction bids, select contractors and obtain permits for implementation activities.
2. d. Purchase construction materials and supplies necessary to construct planned habitat improvements.
2. e. Construct instream fish habitat and streambank stabilization structures determined during prework assessment on the Lostine River, Hurricane Creek and Meadow Creek.
3. Conduct operations and maintenance activities on all existing projects to insure maximum program benefits on all leased riparian areas. a. Inspect and maintain 99.4 miles of riparian fence which protects 57.1 miles of stream and 1,254 acres of riparian habitat. This includes 135 livestock watering gaps and 33 off-site spring developments.
3. b. Assess revegatation success for all leased areas. Plant native trees and shrubs where needed to meet revegetation objectives.
3. c. Inspect leased areas for noxious weeds and work with county weed agencies to control listed species on 1,254 acres of leased habitat.
3. d. Inspect streambank stabilization and instream structures in 57.1 miles of stream and perform necessary maintenance. Use FEMA cost share where available.
3. e. Coordinate O & M activities with landowners to insure that project goals and landowner needs are met.
4. Monitor and evaluate Grande Ronde Basin fish habitat enhancement projects to determine if goals and objectives are being met. a. Annually take 231 photopoint pictures established on 32 individual projects, in 22 streams. Document changes in vegetation and channel morphology attributable to habitat projects.
4. b. Continue year around monitoring of hourly stream temperatures at twelve project monitoring sites on 6 streams. Annually summarize and analyze the data collected.
4. c. Take 70 riparian habitat transects on McCoy and Elk creeks to assess stream channel and vegetative responses to habitat restoration projects.
4. d. Conduct biological surveys (spawning ground counts, fish population estimates, bird nesting, etc.) in selected study areas to determine if positive resposes of fish and wildife are realized within project areas.
4. e. Report results of M & E activities in quarterly and special reports.
5. Insure maximum communication, education, and coordiantion of habitat enhancement activities by actively pursuing opportunities to work with, educate and learn from personnel involved with other agencies, organizations, and programs. a. Work cooperatively with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program and other local watershed councils to identify and prioritize projects and activities beneficial to the protection and restoration of riparian areas and watersheds on private lands.
5. b. Coordinate field activities with other agencies, organizations, and programs to insure program consistency and coordination of habitat enhancement efforts.
5. c. Answer coorespondence, respond to information needs, and make presentations to other agencies, private organizations, school/youth groups and the news media.
5. d. Work cooperatively with private landowners to promote management activities that protect and restore instream and riparian habitat and watersheds on private lands. Update individual landowners on the progress of their projects.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 03/01/00 11/01/00 30.0%
2 06/01/00 11/01/00 5.0%
3 03/01/00 02/01/01 45.0%
4 03/01/00 02/01/01 10.0%
5 03/01/00 02/01/01 10.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 2-FTE's, 2-3 Temps, Prgm Admin. $108,548
Fringe OPE @ 38% of Personnel $ 41,248
Supplies New Implementation $ 19,000
Operating This includes only materials, vehicles, mileage, office supplies, tools & equipment $ 32,408
Travel Frequent overnight trips from La Grande to Enterprise $ 7,656
Indirect Admin. Overhead @ 35.5%, excluding capital and subcontracts $ 74,145
Subcontractor Fence construction and weed control $ 83,777
Total Itemized Budget $366,782

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $366,782
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $366,782
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
ODFW Restoration and Enhancement Board (seeking) Installation of instream structures $ 17,000 unknown
Governors Watershed Enhancement Board (seeking) Materials for 5 miles of riparian fencing $ 19,000 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $325,000 $340,000 $355,000 $370,000
Total Outyear Budgets $325,000 $340,000 $355,000 $370,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Catastrophic natural events such as floods, windstorms or extreme fire danger

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Anderson, J.W., and others. 1992. Upper Grande Ronde River Anadromous Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan. USFS, PNWFRS, ODFW, CRITFC, CTUIR, NPT, OSU. No
Bauer, S.B., and T.A. Burton. 1993. Monitoring protocols to evaluate water quality effects of grazing management on western rangeland streams. US EPA. No
Beschta, R. L., Platts, W.S., and B. Kaufman. 1991. Field review of fish habitat improvement projects in the Grande Ronde and John Day River basins of eastern Oregon. No
Bilby, R. E., and G. E. Likens. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61(5): 1107-1113. No
Bisson, P.A., B.E. Bilby, M. Bryant, C. Dollof, G. Grette, R. House, M. Murphy, K. Koski, and J. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debirs in forested streams in the pacific Northwest. In Cundy, T; Salo, E., eds. Proceedings of a symposium streamside management - No
Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. W.R. Mehan ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Mangement on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 83-138. No
CBFWA. 1990. Integrated System Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Production in the Columbia River Basin. No
CBFWA. 1997. Multi-Year Implementation Plan for the Protection, Restoration & Enhancement of Columbia River Basin Fish & Wildlife Resources. No
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1993. Managing change: livestock grazing on western riparian areas, US Environmental Protection Agency, 45 pp. No
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan. Special report, United States Army Engineer District. Walla Walla, Washington. Yes
CTUIR. 1983. Summary Report: Salmon and steelhead habitat improvement initiatives--John Day, Umatilla, Grande Ronde and Imnaha drainages. No
CTUIR. 1995. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation - Columbia Basin Salmon Policy. No
Cummins, K. W., G. W. Minshall, J. R. Sedell, C. E. Cushing and R. C. Peterson. 1984. Stream ecosystem theory. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22: 1818-1827. No
Keller E.A., and F. J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic material on channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface Processes vol. 4: 361-380. No
Elmore, W., and R. L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands 9(6): 250-265. No
GRMWP. 1994. Grande Ronde Model Watershed Operations - Action Plan. No
Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwitt and E. Beckwitt. 1994. Interim Protection for Late-Sucessional Forest, Fisheries, and Watersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon, and Was No
House, R. A. and P. L. Boehne. 1985. Evaluation of instream enhancement structures for salmonid spawning and rearing in a coastal Oregon stream. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 5: 283-295. No
Huntington, Charles W. 1993. Stream and Riparian Conditions in the Grande Ronde Basin: A report to the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Board, Clearwater Biostudies, Inc. No
Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the River: Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia River Ecosystem. No
Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications - a review. Journal of Range Management 37: 430-438. No
Lichatowich, J.A. and L.E. Mobrand. 1995. Analysis of chinook salmon in the Columbia River from an ecosystem perspective. Mobrand Biometrics. No
Maser, C., R.F. Terrent, J.M.. Trappe and J.F. Franklin (eds.). 1988. From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees., USDA Forest Service, PNRS, Portland OR. 153 pp. No
McGowan, V.R. and R.M. Powell. 1997. Grande Ronde basin fish habitat enhancement project: 1996 Annual Report to BPA. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, La Grande, OR. No
McGowan, V.R. 1997. McCoy Creek electroshocking surveys. Grande Ronde basin fish habitat enhancement project, BPA, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, La Grande, OR. No
McIntosh, B.A., J.R. Sedell, J.E. Smith, R.C. Wismar, S.E. Clarke, G.H. Reeves, and L.A. Brown. 1994. Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935-1992. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-321, Report. USDA, For No
Meehan, W. R., and W. S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33:274-278. No
Meehan, W. R., editor. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonids and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland. No
Mobrand, L. and L. Lestelle. 1997. Application of the ecosystem diagnosis and treatment method to the Grande Ronde model watershed project. BPA Task Order Number 95AT61148, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon. Yes
NMFS. 1997. Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. August 1997 Draft. No
Noll, W., Williams, S., and R. Boyce. 1988. Grande Ronde river basin fish habitat improvement implementation plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Yes
NPPC. 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, OR. No
ODFW, CTUIR, NPT, WDF, WDW. 1990. Grande Ronde River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland, Oregon. Yes
ODFW. 1992. Aquatic inventory of McCoy Creek. Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, OR. No
ODFW. 1996. Aquatic inventory of McCoy Creek. Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, OR. No
Platts, W. S. 1990. Managing Fisheries and Wildlife on Rangelands Grazed by Livestock. Nevada Department of Fish and Wildlife. No
Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. W.R. Meehan ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Mangement on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society No
Reeves, G.H., J. D. Hall, T. D. Roelofs, T. L. Hickman, and C. O. Baker. 1991. Rehabilitating and modifying stream habitats. W.R. Meehan ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Mangement on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society No
Reeves, G. H., D. B. Hohler, B. E. Hansen, F. H. Everest, J.R. Sedell, T. L. Hickman, and D. Shively. 1996. Fish habitat restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Fish Creek of Oregon. Pages 335-358 in J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck No
Roper, B. R., D. Konnof, D. Heller and K. Wieman. 1998. Durability of pacific northwest instream structures following floods. North Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 18:686-693. No
Rosgen, D.R., 1996 Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. No
Sedell, J.R., P.A. Bisson, F. J. Swanson, and S.V. Gregory. 1988. What we know about large trees that fall into streams and rivers. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229:47-81. No
Soloazzi, M. F., J. D. Rodgers, and S. L. Johnson. 1992. Annual Progress Report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. No
White, R. J. 1975. In-stream management for wild trout. Pages 48-58 in W. King ed. Proceedings, wild trout management symposium. Trout Unlimited, Vienna, Virginia. No
Wissmar, R.C., J.E. Smith, B.A. McIntosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reeves and J.R. Sedell. 1994. A history of resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s-1900s). Northwest Science 68: 1-35. No

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on yearly review. The primary weakness is the monitoring and evaluation component of the project, which should be improved in future proposals.

Comments: This is a generally well-written and comprehensive proposal that integrates riparian area and instream habitat enhancement with specific monitoring and evaluation projects to determine the success of these treatments. Habitat protection is viewed as the most productive method of maintaining quality fish habitat. The proposal is to continue working with private landowners to improve stream habitat by rehabilitating riparian zones and instream activities on Meadow Cr., Hurricane Cr., Whiskey Cr., and Lostine R. The project has been in operation for 15 years. This proposal has a good scientific/technical background and strong ties to regional programs. . Watershed assessment was used to identify areas where habitat improvement was needed. Evaluation is accomplished using photopoint comparisons; water temperature monitoring; stream channel and vegetative response; and biological surveys of terrestrial and aquatic organisms. However, information on the monitoring of progress is vague, e.g., "inventories of nesting birds, fish population estimates" is not very informative. These are good biological endpoints to measure, but the actual changes measured and the specific target objectives should be specified. The proposal presents project history in an evaluative way that is very useful. However, the proposers should provide analysis on why some areas are improving, others static, etc. It would also help to know more about the reason for 15 year leases: will desired results (e.g. mature overstory) be achieved in that time?

Reviewers also offered several more specific questions and

Comments: Reviewers asked whether there might be a mismatch between priorities for habitat restoration and the money allocation: e.g., only 5% is going to Objective 2, improving instream habitat, and 23% to fences and weeds. Parts of Task d of Objective 4, bird nesting surveys, etc., seem to be beyond the scope of this project and reviewers asked whether these might be more efficiently carried out by a separate group.

Although the proposers caution the reviewers that the project has been criticized in the past for its high cost, one reviewer suggested that the opposite might be the case - that it is underfunded. While the project describes progress over its 15-year course, the achievements should be critically evaluated and presented: Stream habitat is of critical importance to survival and spawning in the regional streams. It would seem that ensuring good habitat is a first step in the process of restoring salmon and other species. Project 9202604 provides information on critical habitat locations that give guidance to this project. Are locations identified by 9202604 ones where they find fish because habitat in those places is relatively good? Maybe places where fish are not found should get more attention.

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Reduce Objectives 1&2. Potential duplicative efforts were reduced and/or coordination was improved. General reduction in the scope of the project.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Very well prepared proposal that exceeds the page limit.

High personnel and equipment costs.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page