Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199608300

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 CTUIR Grande Ronde Basin Watershed Restoration
BPA Project Proposal Number 199608300
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Business acronym (if appropriate) CTUIR

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Allen B. Childs
Mailing Address P.O. Box 638
City, State, Zip Pendleton, OR 97801
Phone 5412787626
Fax 5412787673
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Blue Mountain
Subbasin Grande Ronde
Short Description Protect and enhance riparian, floodplain, and instream habitat with particular emphasis on the holding, spawning, and rearing areas of salmonid fishes, thus improving water quality and quantity and promoting natural ecological functions.
Target Species Threatended Snake River spring chinook salmon (Onchorhyncus tshawytscha), summer steelhead (Onchorhyncus mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Various non-game fish species and multiple wildlife species.

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: 7.6B.3; 7.6B.4; 7.6C; 7.6C.5; 7.6D, 7.7; 7.8A.5
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kush Wit, Spirit of the Salmon. CRITFC. 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service, Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, 1995, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Washington DC, 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 Operations-Action Plan, Appendix A and B. Grande Ronde Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Project, 1997. Wallowa Whitman National Forest Plan and current Watershed Assessments

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 Completed Phase I of McCoy Meadows Restoration Project - reintroduced McCoy Creek to historic meander channels, implemented bioengineering, riparian tree/shrub planting (5,500 + plants installed), installed/relocated floodplain livestock exclosure
1998 McIntyre Creek Road Relocation/Restoration Project
1999 McCoy Meadows Restoration Project
1999 Meadow Creek Restoration
1999 Mainstem Grande Ronde Habitat Enhancement Project Implementation

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
870001 Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project To minimize cost, this project shares personnel, vehicles, and equipment with CTUIR Umatilla Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project. No
9604601 Walla Walla River Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project To minimize cost, this project shares personnel, vehicles, and equipment with CTUIR Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project. No
9402700 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program (GRMWP) was in umbrella No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Administer CTUIR Grande Ronde River Basin Watershed Restoration Program a. Develop annual contract and scope of work with BPA COTR
1. b. Prepare annual/semi annual reports per contract agreement
1. c. Develop and administer equipment rental and service contracts and professional service agreements to accomplish project work. Perform as COTR on CTUIR contracts
1. d. Prepare documentation and checklists to cover project level NEPA requirements, DSL/Corps 404 permits, etc.
1. e. Prepare/coordinate development of Biological Assessments under ESA for T&E species and cultural resources. Consult with appropriate federal agency on individual projects
2. Identify and prioritize habitat enhancement/restoration project areas a. Review watershed assessments and habitat survey data, collaborate with other basin biologists and hydrologists to identify priority subbasins/stream reaches. Primary work conducted with GRMWP, ODFW, USFS, and NRCS.
2. b. Conduct on-site visits, evaluate site potential for restoration (access, landowner participation, liklehood of success, benefit to salmonid species).
3. Develop anadromous fish habitat/water quality restoration and habitat conservation project opportunities with other agencies and private landowners to address key habitat limiting factors in Grande Ronde River Basin a. Coordinate project development and partnerships with state, federal, and local agencies primarily through GRMWP. Develop/secure multiple funding sources to cost-share efforts where appropriate.
3. b. Contact and coordinate with private landowners in key portions of basin to develop and implement habitat enhancement/restoration project opportunities.
3. c. Negotiate and develop project development and habitat conservation agreements with landowners to accomplish resource objectives.
4. Enhance and Restore Instream Habitat Diversity and Suitability (improve hold and rearing habitat quality and quantity) a. Design and implement appropriate strategies to enhance and restore availability spawning, holding, and rearing habitat - primarily large woody debris/whole tree additions, very limited rock structures.
4. b. Design and implement bioengineering/revegetation activities to enhance/restore streambank stability, stream shade, future recruitable large woody debris, and riparian/floodplain health
4. c. Collect and propagate riparian tree, shrub, and grass/forb material for use in restoration/enhancement projects
5. Enhance and Restore Riparian and Floodplain Habitat Conditions to Enhance and Restore Watershed Health and Flooplain Function (Water Quality/Quantity and Erosion/Sediment) a. Design and implement installation of riparian/floodplain exclosures/pastures and develop range management/livestock management plans including development of pasture systems and off-channel range developments (spring developments, troughs).
5. b. Design and implement floodplain road/railroad rehabilitation/obliteration to recapture floodplain function and reduce sedimentation.
5. c. Conduct noxious weed control including prevention, manual treatments, and chemical treatments.
6. Conduct Habitat Maintenance Activities a. Continue maintenance on McCoy Meadows Project (weed control, revegetation (interplanting/protection), minor structural/streambank repair
6. b. Maintain riparian exclosure/reveg plot protection devices
7. Conduct Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation a. Continue M&E on McCoy Meadows Project --photo points --vegetative plots --revegetation plots --coord with other agencies/organizations conducting M&E (groundwater, fish populations, cross-sections, total stations, ODEQ H20 quality,
7. . OSU Research/Evaluate NE Oregon Stream Restoration And Develop Mgmt Guidelines Project
7. b. Develop and implement M&E on individual projects including: --photopoints --instream habitat --fish populations/use --water quality (temperature) --revegetation sites (stocking/census/survivial, density, stocking)

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 08/01/00 07/01/01 Objective contributes to biological objectives through administration activities Program and project administration 10.0%
2 08/01/00 07/01/01 Project prioritization with subbasin Project, tributary prioritization 5.0%
3 08/01/00 07/01/01 Project identification/development Project scheduling, agreements with landowners 10.0%
4 08/01/00 07/01/01 Habitat enhancement/restoration (increased quality/quantity spawning and rearing habitat) Project designs, installation/construction, vegetation stock collection 30.0%
5 08/01/00 07/01/01 Improved floodplain conditions contributing to habitat quality/quantity and water quality improvement Project designs, installation/construction, noxious weed control/management 30.0%
6 08/01/00 07/01/01 Maintenance of previously installed habitat enhancehance/restoration efforts Ongoing weed control, riparian/floodplain revegetation, structural repairs 10.0%
7 08/01/00 07/01/01 M&E M&E whether objectives have been achieved 5.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $ 80,510
Fringe @28% $ 22,543
Supplies $ 13,580
Operating O&M costs incorporated into personnel and subcontractor line items (manual labor/equipment rental) $ 0
NEPA NEPA/permitting/consultation costs incorporated into personnel line item $ 0
Travel $ 20,800
Indirect 34% of personnel, services, travel, and services/supplies $ 46,717
Subcontractor Includes equipment rental and labor contracts $ 65,850
Total Itemized Budget $250,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $250,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $250,000
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
To be determined $ 0 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $261,420 $273,637 $286,673 $300,586
Total Outyear Budgets $261,420 $273,637 $286,673 $300,586

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Potential constraints include: (1) the cooperation of private landowners; (2) timely processing of instream work permits by the DSL/COE; 3) completion of ESA-related consultation; 4) completion of cultural resource reviews/consultation w/ SHPO.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
CRITFC. 1995. Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kush Wit , Spirit of the Salmon. Intertribal Fish Commission. Portland, Oregon. No
NMFS. 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service, Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Washington DC, No
Huntington, CH. 1993. Clearwater BioStudies. Final Report. Stream and Riparian Conditions in the Grande Ronde Basin. Grande Ronde Model Watershed Operations-Action Plan, Appendix A and B. LaGrande, Oregon Yes
USFS. 1990. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Miscellaneous Stream Survey Summaries. LaGrande Ranger District. LaGrande, Oregon No
Kaufman, J.B., Beschta, R.L., Otting, N., and Lytjen, D., 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries. 22: 12-24 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 clearly justified methods that are presented in more detail..

Comments: Watershed assessments are used to determine priority subbasins/stream reaches for habitat improvement projects. Results of projects funded in 1997 and 1998 suggest positive effects of these projects. The proposed work appears to coordinate well with 8402500. Monitoring and evaluation activities are conducted on all projects, but the results should be given in more detail. The proposal should report progress toward accomplishment of biological objectives. Also, more details about methods are needed. The descriptions of tasks and of methods used to achieve the objectives are very general. How specifically will these objectives be met, and how will success or failure to meet them be assessed? The budget is inadequately justified and detailed. For instance, what is the travel for? What do the technicians do, since all the major work is contracted? The projects appear to include a lot of hard engineering; this needs to be justified.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Reduce Objectives 4 and 5. Potential duplicative efforts were reduced and/or coordination was improved. Objectives and costs were moved to a more appropriate project.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Project seems to overlap (includes many of the same activities) the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. The objectives should be more specific and provide a better focus for the individual projects.

Budget should be more specific.

Proposal doesn't demonstrate how funding an additional person will result in meeting biological objectives. The same person is listed for multiple FTEs.

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 (Confederated Tribes Of The Umatilla Indian Reservation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page