FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27012
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 27012 Narrative | Narrative |
| 27012 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore and Enhance Grande Ronde Valley Deciduous Riparian Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 27012 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mark Henjum |
| Mailing address | 107 20th St. La Grande, OR 978950 |
| Phone / email | 5419632138 / mark.g.henjum@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Susan P. Barnes |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Protect, restore and enhance deciduous riparian habitat adjacent to the Grande Ronde River and its tributaries in the Grande Ronde Valley |
| Target species | Neotropical migrant and resident passerine birds and resident and anadromous fish including: Great Blue Heron, Bald Eagle, Yellow Warbler, Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook (juvenile wintering), Snake River Steelhead, Bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.0718 | -116.9845 | mainstem Grande Ronde River and tributaries within the Grande Ronde Valley, Union Co. Oregon |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 153 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| NA |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| NMFS Biological Opinion RPA Action #150 | Proposed project would protect important Spring Chinook winter habitat | |
| NMFS Biological Opinion RPA Action #153 | Proposed project would achieve BPA/NMFS goal of protecting riparian buffers in agricultural areas | |
| 198402500 | Grande Ronde Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement | Proposed project would compliment this project; emphasis on low elevation, riparian, deciduous habitat in the Grande Ronde Valley |
| 199202604 | Investigate Life History of Spring Chinook and Summer Steelhead the Grande Ronde Basin | Proposed project will utilize findings from this project to protect and enhance riparian habitat in river reaches utilized as winter habitat by Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Snake River Steelhead. |
| Status Review of wildlife Mitigation at Columbia Basin Hydroelectric Projects, Col. mainstem and Lower Snake Facilities (BPA 1984) | Reviewed past, present and proposed future wildlife planning and mitigation programs at BPA's hydrofacilities. Called for quantitative and qualitative assessment of wildlife losses attributable to the dams and implementation of mitigation plans. | |
| Special Report: Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation; Wildlife Habitat Compensation Evaluation for the Lower Snake River Project (ACOE 1991) | Quantified and described wildlife habitat conditions pre- and post-hydroproject construction/inundation, evaluated contribution of Habitat Mgmt. Units to current conditions, defined compensation goals in terms of habitat. | |
| 199208400 | Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project (BPA 1993) | A mitigation planning tool that includes methods for assembling a trust agreement and a list of potential mitigation projects. The Grande Ronde River Valley was identified as a priority site. |
| 199506500 | Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project Using Gap Analysis (ODFW 1997) | A mitigation planning tool used to analyze and rank potential mitigation projects within the basin. The Grande Ronde River Valley was identified as a priority site. |
| 199705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | Programmatic project; explains overall intent for mitigation planning, coordination and implementation by Oregon wildlife managers within Oregon. |
| 200002100 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions | On-going project within the Grande Ronde subbasin that will be complemented by the proposed project's intent to protect and restore riparian habitats. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess baseline conditions | a) Acquire aerial photos of mainstem Grande Ronde river | 1 | $5,000 | |
| b) Produce landowner map | 1 | $5,000 | ||
| 2. Develop priority river reaches | a) Analyze map/photo data | 1 | $5,000 | |
| b) Interview landowners | 1 | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Determine priority habitat protection/enhancement projects | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct pre-conservation easement activities | a) Verify appraisal and obtain BPA approval | on-going | $2,000 | |
| b) Complete NEPA surveys; prepare biological assessment | on-going | $12,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Draft and sign easement agreements | a) All parties review and sign | on-going | $2,000 | |
| 3. Prepare subcontract to administer long-term conservation easement | a) Develop statement of work and contract | on-going | $2,000 | |
| 4. Protect riparian habitat | a) Construct riparian fence | on-going | $70,000 | Yes |
| 5.Enhance riparian habitat | a) Reconnect old oxbows where feasible | on-going | $32,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct pre-conservation easement activities | 2003 | 2006 | $10,000 |
| 2. Draft and sign easement agreements | 2003 | 2006 | $10,000 |
| 3. Prepare subcontracts to administer long-term conservation easement | 2003 | 2006 | $10,000 |
| 4. Protect riparian habitat | 2003 | 2006 | $350,000 |
| 5. Enhance riparian habitat | 2003 | 2006 | $250,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2006 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $80,000 | $150,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Develop management plans for riparian buffers | a) Write management plan; all parties review and sign | on-going | $2,000 | |
| 2. Control noxious weeds | a) Write and implement subcontract for weed control | on-going | $2,000 | Yes |
| 3. Maintain riparian fence | a) Write and implement subcontract for fence maintenance | on-going | $2,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Develop management plans | 2003 | 2006 | $8,000 |
| 2. Control noxious weeds | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
| 3. Maintain riparian fence | 2003 | 2006 | $12,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6,000 | $12,000 | $12,000 | $10,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess bird species composition and abundance in riparian buffers | a) Write and implement subcontract for bird survey | on-going | $5,000 | Yes |
| 2. Assess fish species composition and abundance during winter | a) Write and implement subcontract for fish survey | on-going | $5,000 | Yes |
| 3. Determine change in habitat condition in riparian buffers | a) Establish photo-points | on-going | $0 | |
| b) Conduct periodic HEP analysis | on-going | $0 | ||
| c) Prepare M&E reports | on-going | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0. Assess bird species composition and abundance | 2003 | 2006 | $20,000 |
| 2. Assess fish species composition and abundance | 2004 | 2006 | $15,000 |
| 3. Determine and document habitat change | 2003 | 2006 | $10,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6,000 | $11,000 | $16,000 | $15,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Supplies | Fence materials, aerial photos, maps, weed control supplies | $40,000 |
| Travel | ODFW vehicle | $2,000 |
| Indirect | $1,275 | |
| NEPA | $12,000 | |
| Subcontractor | fence construction, fence maintenance, weed control | $44,000 |
| Other | develop landowner/habitat map (ODFW NE Region Wildlife Research Lab; long-term easement payments | $56,725 |
| $156,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $156,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $156,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| ODFW | 0.25 FTE; | $20,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. More detail is need on the methods. This is a proposal to establish cooperative arrangements with Grande Ronde riparian owners to set up long-term easements for protection and enhancement of riparian habitat. Habitat emphasis is on birds and juvenile Chinook and steelhead.The technical background is excellent, providing detail on context for this project, and putting the problem of riparian habitat protection in perspective. It discusses riparian mitigation priorities in the context of several subbasin planning and watershed assessment documents. The rationale for the project is embedded in this technical background section. The proposal provides a long list of projects to which it would be related.
Despite this good beginning, the proposal gets a little vague beginning with the goals and objectives. The proposal lists general goals that the project will help achieve: are these taken directly from the Grande Ronde Subbasin summary or are these goals specific to this project? Below the list of goals, the proposal contains lists of actions to be taken under various categories: again, are these tasks for this project or actions listed in the Subbasin Summary?
Objectives and tasks are listed, but without any detail. There is no explanation of methods, e.g., as to how habitat will be restored once easements are signed, or what information will be acquired to provide the NEPA analysis. No explanation of methods for weed control, buffer management, bird surveys, stock assessment are given beyond "write the subcontract" to have the activity performed. With regard to M&E, the methods for Task 1a and for Objectives 2 and 3 are missing.
The idea of reconnecting old river oxbows is particularly laudable from the standpoint of regaining fish and wildlife habitat. However, arrangements with landowners for this could be very difficult, and the physical work could be complicated. What method(s) will be used to relocate the channel?
There appear to be good working relationships with landowners in the valley.
The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.
Comment:
This project addresses RPAs 150 and 400. Reviewers questioned why the proposed work was not added to Project 198402500. By combining the proposed work with Project 198402500, a potential cost savings could be realized. The reviewers suggest that the proposal does not illustrate coordination with other entities and other on-going work. In addition, NMFS questions how the restoration efforts will affect the status of fish populations. The reviewers suggest the sponsors consider alternative funding options (e.g., OWEB and the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program). The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.Comment:
Not Fundable. A timely response was not provided and concerns with objectives and methods remain. This is a proposal to establish cooperative arrangements with Grande Ronde riparian owners to set up long-term easements for protection and enhancement of riparian habitat. Habitat emphasis is on birds and juvenile Chinook and steelhead.The technical background is excellent, providing detail on context for this project, and putting the problem of riparian habitat protection in perspective. It discusses riparian mitigation priorities in the context of several subbasin planning and watershed assessment documents. The rationale for the project is embedded in this technical background section. The proposal provides a long list of projects to which it would be related.
Despite this good beginning, the proposal gets a little vague starting with the goals and objectives. The proposal lists general goals that the project will help achieve: are these taken directly from the Grande Ronde Subbasin summary or are these goals specific to this project? Below the list of goals, the proposal contains lists of actions to be taken under various categories: again, are these tasks for this project or actions listed in the Subbasin Summary?
Objectives and tasks are listed, but without any detail. There is no explanation of methods, e.g., as to how habitat will be restored once easements are signed, or what information will be acquired to provide the NEPA analysis. No explanation of methods for weed control, buffer management, bird surveys, stock assessment are given beyond "write the subcontract" to have the activity performed. With regard to M&E, the methods for Task 1a and for Objectives 2 and 3 are missing.
The idea of reconnecting old river oxbows is particularly laudable from the standpoint of regaining fish and wildlife habitat. However, arrangements with landowners for this could be very difficult, and the physical work could be complicated. What method(s) will be used to relocate the channel?
There appear to be good working relationships with landowners in the valley.
To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPossible survival improvements if habitat modifications have intended effects. Proposal is to establish cooperative arrangements with Grande Ronde riparian owners to set up long-term easements for protection and enhancement of riparian habitat. Active restoration would include riparian fencing, vegetation plantings, and re-connecting existing oxbows with the active river channel.
Comments
No info provided on how habitat will be restored once easements are signed. Also, no discussion of coordination/collaboration or how proposed restoration activities would benefit fish. Project will implement Action 153 if permanent or long term (> 15 years) easement is secured. Easement should be consistent with Oregon CREP.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed. Project sponsors have the option of going through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program for funding. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153)
Comment: