Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199202601

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 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program
BPA Project Proposal Number 199202601
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program
Business acronym (if appropriate) GRMWP
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Tom Macy / Lyle Kuchenbecker
Mailing Address 10901 Island Avenue
City, State, Zip La Grande, OR 97850
Phone 5419626590
Fax 5419626593
E-mail macyt@eou.edu
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Blue Mountain
Subbasin 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

[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: 7.0(7.0B.1, 7.6, 7.6C, 7.6D, 7.7B.2-3, 7.8A.4-5)
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References National Marine Fisheries Service, Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, 1995, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Washington DC, Tasks 1.1.b, 1.4.b, 1.4.d, 1.5.b, and 1.6.b. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Sections 7.6D and 7.7. Stream and Riparian Conditions in the Grande Ronde Basin, Section 9.2.2. Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Operations-Action Plan, Appendix A and B. Wallowa County - Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan 1993. Grande Ronde Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Project, 1997. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan and current Watershed Analyses. Oregon Plan Supplement on Steelhead, 1997. Other agency documents as applicable to the Grande Ronde Basin: federal - NRCS, EPA, BOR, BLM; state - DEQ, DSL, ODFW, OWRD, ODA, ODF; Tribal - CTUIR (all support the GRMWP concepts and strategies)


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
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 Umbrella
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. No
9403900 Wallowa Basin Project Provides for technical support and coordination from the Nez Perce Tribe. No
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. No
9703100 Meadow Creek Instream Structure and Riparian Evaluation Intensive habitat restoration monitoring. No
9202604 Spring Chinook Early Life History Provides critical life-history information to focus restoration efforts in the Grande Ronde Basin. No
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. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Coordinate program administration and habitat restoration projects. $80K a. Facilitate inter-agency coordination of program activities and projects with natural resource management agencies.
1. b. Coordinate planning, prioritization and implementation of restoration projects.
1. c. Provide technical support for projects.
1. d. Monitor cumulative effects.
1. e. Serve as a clearing house for restoration information dissemination.
1. f. Provide educational outreach for watershed restoration.
2. Improve passage at road crossings for adult and juvenile salmonids. $95K a. UGR - Replace/modify 3 inadequate culverts
2. b. MGR - Reconstruct 1 bridge
2. c. CC - Modify 2 culvert road crossings
2. d. WR - Replace 3 inadequate crossings
3. Improve passage at irrigation diversions for adult and juvenile salmonids. $85K a. MGR - Modify 1 irrigation diversion structure on the Grande Ronde River - Modify 2 irrigation diversion structures tribs.
3. b. CC – Replace 1 push-up gravel irrigation diversion.
4. Improve in-stream habitat diversity for salmonid spawning and rearing $90K a. UGR – Large woody additions to the GR River and tribs. (2 mi.) - Rock and log structure placements to same streams (2 mi.) - Install 5 grade control structures
4. b. CC - Large wood additions to 1 mi. tribs. - Construct off-channel rearing habitat (.5 mi.)
4. c. WR - Install 5 grade control structures - Reconstruct channel meanders (.5 mi.)
5. Enhance riparian condition (vegetation, function, etc) to restore and improve natural hydraulic and sediment regimes, floodplain and stream channel function $225K a. UGR - Construct 1.5 mi. of riparian fencing. -Wet meadow restoration (35 ac.) - Develop 7 off-stream water sources - Close/obliterate 2 mi. of sediment producing roads - Plant 4000 feet of streambank - Noxious weed control on 75 acres
5. b. MGR -Construct 2 mi. of riparian fencing - Develop 5 off-stream water sources -Wet meadow restoration (15 ac.)
5. c. LGR - Construct 2 mi. of riparian fencing - Develop 6 off-stream water sources
5. d. CC - Construct 5 mi. of riparian fencing - Develop 6 off-stream water sources -Wet meadow restoration (25 ac.) - Plant 2500 feet of streambank
5. e. JC - Construct 3.5 mi. of riparian fencing - Develop 6 off-stream water sources
5. f. WR – Construct 2 mi. of riparian fencing - Plant 1000 feet of streambank -Wet meadow restoration (30 ac.)
5. g. IR - Construct 6 mi. of riparian fencing
6. Improve streambank stability to reduce stream channel sedimentation $105K a. UGR - Construct 15 barb/log revetment stabilization structures in the Grande Ronde River - Construct 5 grade control vortex weirs in the Grande Ronde River - Revegetate 8000 feet of streambank on the Grande Ronde River and tribs. - Construct 1.5 mi. of ri
6. b. MGR - Revegetate 6000 feet of streambank on the Grande Ronde River and tribs. - Construct 1.5 mi.of riparian fencing - Develop 5 off-stream water sources
6. c. CC - Revegetate .5 mi. of streambank on mainstem Catherine Creek and tribs. - Construct 1.5 mi. feet of riparian fencing
6. d. WR - Construct 10 barb/log revetment stabilization structures on Wallowa River and tribs.
7. Improve upland watershed conditions to reduce sediment inputs to stream courses $140K a. UGR - Noxious weed treatment on 100 acres - Seeding on 100 acres -Construct 2 mi. of pasture fencing -Tree density manipulation (250 ac.)
7. b. MGR- Noxious weed treatment on 250 ac. - Seeding on 250 acres - Construct 1 mi. pasture fencing
7. c. -LGR - Noxious weed treatment (300 ac.) -Seeding (300 ac.)
7. d. CC - Construct 2 mi. pasture fencing
7. e. WR - Construct 2 mi. pasture fencing
7. f. IR - Noxious weed treatment on 150 acres - Seeding on 150 acres - Construct 3 mi. pasture fencing
8. Increase late-season stream flows to maintain lower stream temperatures and improve aquatic function $110K a. MGR - Improve water conveyance efficiency for 2 ditches on the Grande Ronde River and tribs.
8. b. CC - Improve water conveyance efficiency for 2 ditches on mainstem Catherine Creek - Improve water application efficiency on 800 acres irrigated from Catherine and Little Creeks -Acquire instream water rights
8. c. WR - Improve water conveyance efficiency on 1 ditch on mainstem Wallowa River and tribs. -Improve water application efficiency on 200 acres irrigated from the same streams
9. Improve water quality (nutrients, pH, temp) for salmonid production and survival a. All Watersheds - tasks listed under Objectives 5, 6, 7, and 8 will also meet this objective.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/99 12/01/00 9.0%
2 10/01/99 12/01/00 100% passage of adults and juveniles at project sites. Open area above passage sites making several miles of stream available for anadromous salmonid use. 10.0%
3 10/01/99 12/01/00 Reduce mortality at project sites to zero for upstream and downstream migrants. Reduce migration delays. 9.0%
4 10/01/99 12/01/00 Increase the number of anadromous salmonids utilizing existing areas by improving quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat. 10.0%
5 10/01/99 12/01/00 Increase the numbers and quality of smolts as well as improve spawning and egg incubation survival. 24.0%
6 10/01/99 12/01/00 Increase biological productivity and subsequent smolt numbers and quality. 11.0%
7 10/01/99 12/01/00 same as # 6 15.0%
8 10/01/99 12/01/00 Increase juvenile survival by increasing rearing area and quality through higher in-stream flows during critical times. 12.0%
9 10/01/99 12/01/00 -  


Section 5. 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
Total Itemized Budget $930,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project 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%


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
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

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $1,095,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000
Total Outyear Budgets $1,095,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000 $1,095,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Landowner inability to cost-share work, technical support availability, ESA consultation delays.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Huntington, C.W. 1993. Stream and Riparian Conditions in the Grande Ronde Basin. Clearwater BioStudies, Incorporated. Canby, Oregon. Summary, analysis and assessment of all available stream inventory data within the Grande Ronde Basin. Yes
Duncan, D. and G. Cawthon. May 1994. Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Operations/Action Plan. PNW Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho. Yes
Citizens of Wallowa County, August 1993. Wallowa County-Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan. Wallowa County Court, Enterprise, Oregon. Yes
Diebel, K. 1997. Grande Ronde Basin Water Quality Monitoring, 1997. Union Soil & Water Conservation District; Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program; Wallowa Soil & Water Conservation District. Annual summary and report on the basin-wide monitoring prog Yes
National Marine Fisheries Servicde Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS 1995) No
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program - Report of Contract Compliance - BPA Agreement No. DE-AI79-92BP66658 (Annual Reports 1992-1998) No
NPPC. 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland. OR. No


Section 7. Abstract

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
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$930,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Potential duplicative efforts were reduced and/or coordination was improved. Unclear objectives were more clearly defined.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$930,000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$1,343,166
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$1,343,166
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$1,343,166
Sponsor (Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page