FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27004

Additional documents

TitleType
27004 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleGrande Ronde and Imnaha Stream Channel Complexity and Fish Passage Barrier Inventory, Prioritization and Remediation
Proposal ID27004
OrganizationOregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKen Bierly
Mailing address775 Summer St., Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301-1290
Phone / email5039860182 / Ken.Bierly@state.or.us
Manager authorizing this projectGeorffery A. Huntington
Review cycleBlue Mountain
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionThis project will complete an inventory of the channel simplification of the Grande Ronde and Imnaha stream channes and inventory each fish passage barrier in each basin. The data will be used to develop restoration priorities and early implementation.
Target speciesSpring Chinook, Summer Steelhead, Bull Trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.0718 -116.9845 Grande Ronde River
45.8172 -116.7647 Imnaha River
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 149

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 154 NMFS BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2000 Funded the development of a whole basin inventory of barriers in the Scappoose Basin
1996 Supported and participated in the development of a prioritization scheme for fish passage barrier removel in the Rogue basin

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9202601 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program The GRMW will be the primary forum for public outreach with results and other public involvement
9702500 Implement the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan This project will provide passage specific watershed restoration project implementation

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1.Identify Historic Stream Channel Changes a. gather background data and determine scale of analysis b. develop historic maps c. develop change maps 1 $50,000 Yes
2. Inventory Fish Passage Barriers 1.5 $110,600 Yes
3. Prioritize Fish Passage Barriers and Stream Habitat Improvement 0.75 $30,980 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Design and Implement 20 high priority projects @ $40,000 3 6 $104,196
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$80,980$80,980$40,000$40,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Design andImplement Priority projects 20@ $40,000 3 6 $104,196
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$200,000$200,000$200,000$200,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 3.0 $88,200
Fringe $35,280
Supplies $6,500
Travel $3,500
Indirect $8,100
Subcontractor Channel Change Analysis $50,000
$191,580
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$191,580
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$191,580
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
OWEB cash $400,000 cash
Other budget explanation

Monitoring and evaluation will be developed in conjunction with ODF&W.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. More detail on the prioritization methods and effort should be provided.

This is a proposal to inventory stream channel simplification and fish passage barriers in each basin, and to prioritize restoration activities. The conceptual basis of the project is straightforward and logical.

The proposal provides very little technical background, although important primary literature is referenced. The rationale is similarly sparse in detail. The objectives are reasonable, but methods are lacking in detail. For example, what is the standard inventory method for fish passage barriers developed by OPSW? Only a reference to "see websites" is given in the proposal. Details on "other available data" should also be given.

The area in which the lack of detail about methods is most critical is in the development of a prioritization strategy. How will basin characteristics be analyzed? How will the significance of barriers to fish utilization of upstream habitat be evaluated? What are the criteria for prioritization? Additionally, detail on how the prioritization process will be coordinated with various interests should be given as well as a description of the M&E that will be done and the methods that will be used.

Overall, the proposal provides too little detail to evaluate the proposed work in terms of need, methods, or relationship to the FWP.

The prioritization process was described in the presentation. The focus will be on historical range, access to productive habitat, and significance of the barrier.

The project would put staff in SWCDs to inventory streams in coordination with USFS and other parties. Historical work will be contracted to the Or Natural Heritage Foundation using railroad surveys as the primary documents. This is a methodology similar to one used for coastal lowlands. Maps will be available through the State GIS site.

A joint publication with FWS is planned. Willamette historical mapping is available now through Oregon Natural Heritage Foundation on their website.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Although the proposal presented a potentially good concept, it was incomplete and as a result the reviewers could not evaluate the technical and management merits. The reviewers identified a need for coordination between this proposal and Proposal 27022 and suggested that a funding decision should be deferred until the subbasin planning process is completed. In addition, the reviewers indicate that an inventory of fish passage barriers is not warranted since barriers to fish passage have already been identified. The managers indicated that there has been a lack of coordination with the management agencies.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. A timely response was not provided to address the ISRP concerns. More detail on the prioritization methods and effort was needed.

This is a proposal to inventory stream channel simplification and fish passage barriers in each basin, and to prioritize restoration activities. The conceptual basis of the project is straightforward and logical.

The proposal provides very little technical background, although important primary literature is referenced. The rationale is similarly sparse in detail. The objectives are reasonable, but methods are lacking in detail. For example, what is the standard inventory method for fish passage barriers developed by OPSW? Only a reference to "see websites" is given in the proposal. Details on "other available data" were lacking.

The area in which the lack of detail about methods is most critical is in the development of a prioritization strategy. How will basin characteristics be analyzed? How will the significance of barriers to fish utilization of upstream habitat be evaluated? What are the criteria for prioritization? Additionally, detail on how the prioritization process will be coordinated with various interests should be given as well as a description of the M&E that will be done and the methods that will be used.

Overall, the proposal provides too little detail to evaluate the proposed work in terms of need, methods, or relationship to the FWP.

The prioritization process was described in the presentation. The focus will be on historical range, access to productive habitat, and significance of the barrier.

The project would put staff in SWCDs to inventory streams in coordination with USFS and other parties. Historical work will be contracted to the Oregon Natural Heritage Foundation using railroad surveys as the primary documents. This is a methodology similar to one used for coastal lowlands. Maps will be available through the State GIS site.

A joint publication with FWS is planned. Willamette historical mapping is available now through Oregon Natural Heritage Foundation on their website.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Project is to complete an inventory of channel simplification of the Grande Ronde and Imnaha stream channels and inventory each fish passage barrier in each basin. Data are intended to be used to develop restoration priorities and early implementation.

Comments
Proposal provides little detail on methods to be used, especially in development of a prioritization strategy. What are the criteria for prioritization? What M&E work will be done & what methods will be used?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: