FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 199202601: Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program Habitat Restoration - Planning, Coordination and Implementation

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Lyle Kuchenbecker

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199202601
Proposal Name: Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program Habitat Restoration - Planning, Coordination and Implementation
BPA Project Manager: Dorothy Welch
Agency, Institution or Organization: Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Short Description: The project coordinates BPA funded restoration activities in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins working with tribes, agencies and landowners. The project annually implements 10-20 habitat restoration projects.
Information Transfer: The Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW) maintains a database of all watershed/habitat restoration activities implemented in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins by all entities from 1985 to the present. The database is tied to a GIS. Data is uploaded into the Oregon Plan Bi-Annual Report. Reports and summarized data are available on the GRMW Website at www.grmw.org. Information in the database is used extensively by partners of the GRMW to demonstrate the cooperative on-going restoration efforts in the subbasin and to report accomplishments to BPA and other entities.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Lyle Kuchenbecker Grande Ronde Model Watershed 1114 J Avenue
La Grande OR 97850
Ph: 541.663.0570
Fax: 541.962.1585
Email: lyle@grmw.org
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Lyle Kuchenbecker Grande Ronde Model Watershed 1114 J Avenue
La Grande OR 97850
Ph: 541.663.0570
Fax: 541.962.1585
Email: lyle@grmw.org
Form Submitter
Jeff Oveson Grande Ronde Model Watershed 1114 J Avenue
La Grande OR 97850
Ph: 541.663.0570
Fax: 541.962.1585
Email: jeff@grmw.org
Contract Manager

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Blue Mountain ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Grande Ronde ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Entire Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins, Union and Wallowa Counties. 5,265 sq.mi. Wallowa, Union, Oregon Grande Ronde Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Steelhead Snake River ESU
All Wildlife
Bull Trout
Interior Redband Trout
Mountain Whitefish
Pacific Lamprey
Rainbow Trout
Wildlife species using riparian habitats

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 2005 7 Projects, 7 with BPA Funding, $166,521 BPA Funds, $236,642 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
2004 2004 14 Projects, 13 with BPA Funding, $653,693 BPA Funds, $1,103,142 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
2003 2003 1 Project, 1 with BPA Funding, $127,001 BPA Funds, $0 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
2002 2002 12 Projects, 11 with BPA Funding, $399,087 BPA Funds, $937,031 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
2001 2001 19 Projects, 18 with BPA Funding, $344,473 BPA Funds, $638,831 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
2000 2000 20 Projects, 19 with BPA Funding, $798,327 BPA Funds, $2,076,657 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
1999 1999 27 Projects, 26 with BPA Funding, $ 646,818 BPA Funds, $1,536,240 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
1998 1998 32 Projects, 11 with BPA Funding, $538,747 BPA Funds, $1,477,165 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
1997 1997 44 Projects, 38 with BPA Funding, $1,007,195 BPA Funds, $1,144,640 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
1996 1996 50 Projects, 41 with BPA Funding, $721,271 BPA Funds, $1,518,007 Cost share, See Narrative Section “Project History” for detailed work accomplishments
1995 1995 93 Projects, 7 with BPA Funding, $273,272 BPA Funds, $5,786,177 cost share, See Narrative Section "Project History" for detailed work accomplishments

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 198402500 Ne Oregon Habitat Projects GRMW & ODFW staff coordinate restoration project planning, landowner involvement, funding acquisition, ESA compliance, permitting and implementation. ODFW staff provide technical assistance to GRMWP Project.
BPA 199202604 Life Studies of Spring Chinook Project 199202604 helps identify critical habitat needs of juvenile chinook to assist GRMW staff in targeting restoration opportunities.
BPA 199608300 Grand Ronde Watershed Restor GRMW & CTUIR staff coordinate restoration project planning, landowner involvement, funding acquisition, ESA compliance, permitting and implementation. CTUIR staff provide technical assistance to GRMWP Project.
BPA 200002100 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites-Oregon Ladd Marsh WMA GRMW staff will assist ODFW staff with landowner contacts and coordinate projects developed under this project with GRMWP Project activities.
OWEB - State 204-049 Grande Ronde Model WS Program OWEB project 204-049 provides partial administrative funding for GRMW staff. GRMW staff provide technical review of OWEB restoration grant applications.
OWEB - State 204-434 End Cr/Rice Fish Habitat & Wet BPA funds acquired through GRMWP Project . GRMWP acquired OWEB cost share funds.
OWEB - State 205-095 Wallowa River/McDaniel Habitat BPA funds acquired through GRMW.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Channel condition To have both a 1)distribtion of channel types as well as 2) a distribution of habitat conditions within those channel types that are as close as possible to the historic condition of these two variables. Grande Ronde The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. 258-264
Low flow conditions To enhance low flow conditions such that they mimic the natural hydrograph. Grande Ronde The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. 258-264
Riparian function To have a distribution of riparian communities having 1)a species composition, 2)size, and 3)structure that is appropriate for the channel type and ecoregion. Grande Ronde The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. 258-264
Sediment conditions To have a distribution of sediment type and size structure that is appropriate for the channel type, geology and ecoregion. Grande Ronde The GRMWP Project will implement a suite of individual projects under this proposal. See Narrative, Section F, Table 9 for strategies specific to each proposed habitat project. 258-264

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
01: Coordination Coordinate habitat restoration activities in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins Includes all GRMWP coordination with resource management agencies, regulatory agencies, potential funding sources and landowners. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $143,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

02: Coordination Regional Coordination Coordinate in-basin acivities with agencies and entities outside the Grande Ronde Subbasin such as OWEB, regulatory agencies, state and federal representatives and NPCC 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $71,500
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

03: Outreach and Education Coordinate community outreach activities related to habitat protection/enhancement/restoration Includes publication of quarterly newsletter, organization of workshops, river cleanups, coodination with agency educational activities, newspaper articlesand project tours 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $35,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
* # of general public reached: Quarter newsletter, approx. 8000 copies per issue

04: Identify and Select Projects Plan, coordinate, develop and review restoration projects for BPA funding Solicit habitat project proposals, conduct pre-proposal site reviews, coordinate technical site reviews, develop project proposals 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $219,500
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

05: Coordination Provide restoration project development technical assistance to landowners Coordinate and provide technical assistance to landowners directly, subcontract professional services, engage agency biologists. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $49,693
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

06: Manage and Administer Projects Manage & Administer GRMW Sponsored Habitat Restoration Projects Conduct all administrative functions and project management activities, including administration of subcontracts associated with habitat restoration projects and contracts sponsored by the GRMWP. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $429,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

07: Produce Annual Report Produce GRMWP Project Annual Report Produce annual reports as per Pisces 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $28,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

08: Produce Status Report Produce GRMWP Project Quarterly Status Reports Produce quarterly status reports for project #199202601 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $48,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

09: Produce Annual Report Produce Annual Reports for GRMWP Sponsored Restoration Projects Produce annual and/or completion reports for GRMWP habitat restoration projects. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $38,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

10: Produce Annual Report Produce Quarterly Status Reports for GRMW Sponsored Restoration Projects Produce quarterly Pisces reports for habitat projects 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $95,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

11: Create/Manage/Maintain Database Maintain GRMWP Habitat Restoration Project Database Solicit, Input, update and validate restoration project data for all Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin restoration projects 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $246,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

12: Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Disseminate Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin restoration project data and maps Provide Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin restoration project data and maps to agencies and interested parties. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $40,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

13: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Conduct ESA Consultation, Obtain CR Clearance, Obtain Permits Complete biological assessments, cultural resource surveys and NEPA compliance. Obtain Oregon SHPO clearance and all necessary DSL, COE and DEQ permits for GRMWP sponsored projects. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $55,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

14: Produce Design and/or Specifications Complete Restoration Project Engineering Subcontract professional engineering services as necessary to provide engineering technical assistance, preliminary designs, final designs and contract inspection for construction projects. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $225,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

15: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Restore historic channels Reconstruct new channels, fill channelized ditches, reconnect remnant historic channels 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $430,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Channel condition
Riparian function
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 18.75 miles

16: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Install LWD, root-wad revetments, grade control structures The addition of structural elements in conjunction with channel reconstruction to stabilize new channels or provide habitat complexity. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $325,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Channel condition
Riparian function
* # of stream miles treated: 18.75

17: Install Fence Construct Riparian Exclusion Fencing [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $110,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Riparian function
Sediment conditions
* # of miles of fence: 12 miles

18: Plant Vegetation Plant vegetation Plant trees, shrubs and sedges in riparian areas, usually in conjunction with livestock management activites or channel reconstruction 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $425,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Riparian function
* # of acres of planted: 960 acres

19: Develop Alternative Water Source Develop Off-Stream Livestock Water Sources Develop off-stream livestock water sources, includes spring development, trough and fencing to reduce livestock impacts to riparian areas. Often used in conjunction with riparian exclosure fencing. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $95,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Riparian function
Sediment conditions
No Metrics for this Work Element

20: Install Fish Passage Structure Replace, modify or install fish passage structures Improve/reestablish fish passage through culvert replacement, irrigation diversion structure removal or modification 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $940,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: yes
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 5 miles total restriction
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 28 miles partial restriction
* If installing a ladder, does the ladder meet NOAA specs for attraction flow, pool dimensions, jump height, etc?: yes


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel GRMWP Project staff, Executive Director, Program Manager, Database Manager, Monitoring Coordinator, Receptionist, Contract Planner $282,106 $288,410 $296,781
Fringe Benefits GRMWP Project staff, Executive Director, Program Manager, Database Manager, Monitoring Coordinator, Receptionist $75,062 $77,314 $79,633
Supplies General office and field supplies, educational materials, conference/workshop supplies, media announcements $9,200 $9,500 $9,800
Travel GRMWP Project staff travel, local and regional $4,400 $4,500 $4,700
Overhead Office lease, vehicle lease/mileage, internet/phone services, computer hardware/software upgrades, contracted computer services $97,686 $100,600 $103,600
Other BPA funds allocated to habitat projects coordinated, developed, reviewed and approved through the GRMWP Project $877,601 $869,045 $858,355
Totals $1,346,055 $1,349,369 $1,352,869

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$4,048,293
Total Work Element budget$4,048,293

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
County & City government, EOU In-kind services $30,000 $55,000 $55,000 In-Kind Under Development
CTUIR In-kind services and technical assistance $40,000 $55,000 $55,000 In-Kind Under Development
CTUIR, NPT Habitat project funding $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Cash Under Development
Federal Aviation Administration Habitat project funding $ 0 $136,000 $ 0 Cash Confirmed
Landowners, farmers, ranchers Habitat project funding $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 Cash Under Development
Landowners, farmers, ranchers In-kind services $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 In-Kind Under Development
NOAA, USFWS, USFS, BOR Habitat project funding $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Cash Under Development
NOAA, USFWS, USFS, BOR, FAA, BLM In-kind services and technical assistance $205,000 $205,000 $205,000 In-Kind Under Development
ODFW, ODF, OWRD In-kind services, technical assistance $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 In-Kind Under Development
ODFW, OWEB, ODOT, ODF Habitat project funding $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Cash Under Development
OWEB Habitat project funding $78,000 $ 0 $ 0 Cash Confirmed
OWEB Habitat project funding $ 0 $76,000 $ 0 Cash Under Review
Wallowa Resources Habitat project funding $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Cash Under Development
Wallowa Resources In-kind services and technical assistance $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 In-Kind Under Development
Totals $983,000 $1,157,000 $945,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$1,393,455 $1,435,259 GRMWP Requests 3% annual increases beyond FY 2009. This is to continue current level of habitat restoration work.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
 
Termination Date Comments
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$1,183,849
FY 2008 Budget
$1,183,849
FY 2009 Budget
$1,183,849
Total NPCC Rec
$3,551,547
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable qualified. Sponsor should complete report as called for in ISRP recommendation. Funding in 08 and 09 contingent upon favorable review by ISRP and Council. Project to be implemented with reduced scope Some work elements may be able to be capitalized.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$1,183,849
FY 2008 Budget
$1,183,849
FY 2009 Budget
$1,183,849
Total NPCC Rec
$3,551,547
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: ISRP fundable qualified. Sponsor should complete report by March 07 as called for in ISRP recommendation. Funding in 08 and 09 contingent upon favorable review by ISRP and Council.

Local or MSRT Comments: OSPIT suggests reducing the pace of implementation to slightly below the FY2006 level and then flatlining the outyears.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC Comments: The sponsors have satisfactorily addressed the ISRP’s concerns and we thank them for clarifying several important issues regarding the operation of the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program (GRMWP). The ISRP reiterates that the GRMWP has been highly successful in implementing projects and has an outstanding record of cooperative work among government and private entities. A central ISRP concern about the GRMWP was that the proposal did not provide an adequate summary of project effectiveness and monitoring. The sponsors make the point that compiling the results of 150 projects would yield benefits but is precluded due to fiscal limitations related to the 5% budget limitation imposed by BPA. The ISRP appreciates the sponsor’s willingness to undertake this assessment, which apparently would largely require compilation of existing records, and encourages the NPCC and BPA to provide funds for this effort. This expenditure would be appropriate because the GRMWP is the largest program of its type in the basin -- truly a “model” as the name implies -- and the assessment would allow a better evaluation of the success of the program.

Qualification: The sponsors should develop a report presenting quantitative and qualitative results to date pertaining to the effectiveness of the projects under their domain, a general summary and conclusions about overall project effectiveness, and the application of the results to management. The sponsors should report positive results as well as results from projects that to date may not yet have produced significant effects. This effort should be funded by BPA and reviewed by the ISRP in FY07. The response of the sponsors of project # 199608300 may provide some guidance for preparation of the report.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: There is every indication that the project has been a success so far. An impressive number of enhancement projects have been undertaken, and the record of cooperative work among government and private entities is excellent. Nevertheless, there are several issues that the sponsors need to address. The proposal lacks a comprehensive assessment of the progress of each enhancement project to date, in terms of how well the projects are achieving their objectives (see Project History comments).

While implementation and effectiveness monitoring of individual restoration projects is required, the sponsors have not attempted monitoring on larger spatial scales (e.g., stream reach, tributary, subbasin) to assess the cumulative effect of multiple restoration projects on habitat and population responses. They discuss the real problems involved with monitoring action effectiveness at large spatial scales and over the long time periods that may be required to clearly see results. Unfortunately, the sponsors leave the impression that they do not know whether habitat and populations have benefited from the expenditure of $22 million ($6 million from BPA) since 1992. The sponsors seem to be focused on why large-scale monitoring can’t be done rather than making a serious effort to address the problem. The sponsors need to make a serious effort to develop a meaningful strategy for effectiveness monitoring at larger spatial scales. Communication with other projects addressing similar issues such as the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and the NOAA-Fisheries ISEMP could provide a starting point. A workshop also could be beneficial.

Have the sponsors considered the project's function in adaptive management of the Grande Ronde basin? Could the sponsors provide a more detailed description of their proposal review procedure (review criteria, expertise involved, etc.)?

Technical and scientific background: The problem is well defined. Salmon have declined precipitously in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha watersheds. The sponsors propose to coordinate habitat restoration actions to recover declining stocks. EDT was used to examine possible restoration scenarios.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Grand Ronde and Imnaha subbasin plans serve as the guiding documents for the diverse projects coordinated by the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (GRMWP). The proposal is linked to the Snake River Recovery Plan and the Oregon Plan. A major strength of the sponsors program is that it is a partnership that includes tribes, elected officials, state and federal natural resource management agencies, a state university, environmental groups, agricultural groups and economic development.

Relationships to other projects: The sponsors work with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and various key state and federal. The proposed work is closely related to four projects funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Project history: The sponsors have completed an impressive number of enhancement projects primarily targeting priority watersheds as identified in the Grande Ronde subbasin plan. They have received substantial funding for this work not only from BPA but also from numerous state, federal, and private entities. Their success is due in part to the excellent working relationships they appear to have established with government and private entities.

A concern is that the sponsors provide little documentation of the progress of the projects under their direction. Because this project has been funded by BPA for a long period and considerable monitoring data should have accrued, some documentation of project progress is essential above and beyond a listing of actions taken such as the number of projects undertaken and the number of instream structures installed. Detailed documentation of the progress of individual projects in this proposal is unrealistic because of the large number of projects. As an alternative, for each project, the sponsors could indicate the priority watershed in which it is located, project objectives, limiting factors and the priority restoration actions (Table 6) that have been undertaken, and metrics for evaluation. Table 9 provides a template for this summary. The sponsors could provide an indication of the changes that have occurred at the project site (e.g., increased pool frequency and depth, reestablishment of willow, increased number of fish using pools, increased spawning habitat, no change as yet, etc.) and an overall, objective assessment of the progress of the project relative to the information provided above. Finally, they should provide an objective evaluation of the status of data analysis for each project. The sponsors point out the problems in measuring fish population responses to habitat improvement. It may not take as long to see population trends as the sponsors think (maybe 5 to 10 years rather than the "many years" that is written).

Objectives: The objectives-strategies section is clear and logical for the most part. The sponsors provide priority strategies, geographic priorities, an explanation of the process for project selection, and a table of projects under development. The objectives section could be improved by analyzing needs (watershed analysis) before launching into treatments. Apparently some (perhaps much) of this has been done, but it is not clear where in the sequence the watershed analysis is supposed to take place.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are generally but sufficiently described for a project of this type. The sponsors will employ both well-established passive (preferred) and active enhancement strategies, and they provide a reasonable discussion of the kinds of conditions for which each of these strategies will be employed. In objectives and strategies, the sponsors made thoughtful distinction between long-term recovery (curing of human-generated causes of problems) and short-term, symptomatic treatment (fixes) of habitat deficiencies. The proposal would be improved if the tables (Tables 8 and 9) and other statements of methods were to distinguish explicitly between remedies of causes and fixing of symptoms. This distinction would help to keep program's personnel more mindful of this important aspect as the program progresses.

Monitoring and evaluation: Project-specific implementation and basic effectiveness monitoring is required of each project coordinated by the GRMWP. The project has deferred monitoring of the cumulative effectiveness of multiple projects at larger spatial scales such as the stream reach, tributary, or subbasin. It would seem that the GRMWP should be the focal point for development of an adaptive management program.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities are sufficient to allow the sponsors to meet project objectives. The personnel have demonstrated their ability to manage the project.

Information transfer: The sponsors do not provide a concise discussion of how information will be transferred but, because of the cooperative nature of the project, there is every reason to believe it will be transferred adequately, at least locally. Reports are required for each project.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The projects should benefit focal species but the sponsors did not give detailed information on the actual benefits accrued to this point. The projects are primarily relate to habitat improvement and should benefit non-focal species.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.