FY 2000 proposal 199202601

Additional documents

TitleType
199202601 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleGrande Ronde Model Watershed Program
Proposal ID199202601
OrganizationGrande Ronde Model Watershed Program (GRMWP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTom Macy / Lyle Kuchenbecker
Mailing address10901 Island Avenue La Grande, OR 97850
Phone / email5419626590 / macyt@eou.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionContinuation of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program to coordinate, plan and implement salmonid habitat restoration projects.
Target speciesSnake River spring chinook salmon - summer steelhead - bull trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
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.
9403900 Wallowa Basin Project Provides for technical support and coordination from the Nez Perce Tribe.
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.
9703100 Meadow Creek Instream Structure and Riparian Evaluation Intensive habitat restoration monitoring.
9202604 Spring Chinook Early Life History Provides critical life-history information to focus restoration efforts in the Grande Ronde Basin.
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.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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
$930,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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
Other budget explanation

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


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

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.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Potential duplicative efforts were reduced and/or coordination was improved. Unclear objectives were more clearly defined.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

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.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$1,343,166 $1,343,166 $1,343,166

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website