FY 2000 proposal 199403900
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Wallowa Basin Project Planner |
| Proposal ID | 199403900 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Don Bryson |
| Mailing address | 612 SW 2nd St. Enterprise, OR 97828 |
| Phone / email | 5414260119 / bryson@oregontrail.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Act as the liaison between the Nez Perce Tribe and Wallowa County. Help coordinate efforts in Wallowa County between the Tribe, County Court, Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program, local landowners, and state and federal agencies. |
| Target species | chinook, summer steelhead, bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1994 |
Bear Creek Action Plan. |
| 1995 |
Lostine River Habitat Assessment. |
| 1995 |
Combined three irrigation diversion structures on the Wallowa River into one structure with built in fish passage. This eliminated three annual pushup dams. |
| 1996 |
Converted annual push-up irrigation diversion structure into a permanent structure with built-in fish passage on the lower Lostine River. |
| 1997 |
Converted three annual push-up irrigation diversion structures into permanent structures with built-in fish passage on the lower Lostine River. |
| 1997 |
Constructed a low flow channel in the lower three miles of Bear Creek to facilitate late season passage of spring chinook to the spawning grounds. |
| 1994 |
Seven stream gages were installed at irrigation diversion structures in Bear Creek. |
| 1995 |
Twenty-nine stream gages installed at irrigation diversion structures in the Lostine and Wallowa rivers. Five additional gages were installed on the mainstems of Bear Creek and the Wallowa and Lostine rivers and two abandoned USGS gages were reinstalled. |
| 1996 |
Completed the Eco-System Diagnosis and Treatment project for Wallowa County. |
| 1997 |
Completed the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology study on the Lostine River. |
| 1998 |
Revised the hatchery/natural production computer model to include a sliding scale involving Oregon’s Wild Fish Policy as per the dispute resolution settlement stemming from the 1993 spring chinook run in the Imnaha River. |
| 1995 |
Forty-six habitat projects approved in Wallowa County through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program in 1994-1995 |
| 1996 |
Nineteen habitat projects approved in Wallowa County through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. |
| 1997 |
Eleven habitat projects approved in Wallowa County through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. |
| 1998 |
Ten habitat projects approved in Wallowa County through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9202601 |
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Administration |
Implements project 9202601 in Wallowa County and shares other project information. |
| 9402700 |
Grande Model Watershed Project Implementation |
Member of the Technical Committee which determines technical competence of project proposals and the Board which decides on the project’s fundability. |
| 9702500 |
County/Tribe Plan Implementation |
Manages project 9702500. |
| 8805301 |
Northeast Oregon Hatchery Project |
Provides technical advise and the habitat/natural production tie. |
| 9604400 |
Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program |
Provide technical advise and the habitat/natural production tie. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
1.25 FTEs |
$26,580 |
| Fringe |
|
$6,616 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,451 |
| Operating |
office rent and utilities |
$2,379 |
| Travel |
|
$3,134 |
| Indirect |
|
$10,795 |
| Other |
telephone, training, vehicles, etc. |
$7,080 |
| $58,035 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $58,035 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $58,035 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Bureau of Reclamation |
½ of total budget |
$58,035 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: 1. NEPA, NMFS/USF&W consultation and fill and removal permit applications may take longer than expected.
2 Project opportunities may occur which were not anticipated.
3. Land owner availability may change.
4. Unforeseen issues.
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, but fold into 9702500 (or other proposals for specific projects to be undertaken or overseen by the planner) as an administrative cost of the work. Without association with a proposal for specific work, the quality of the work by the planner/coordinator cannot be evaluated. Future specific proposals should better describe how projects are prioritized for funding and should included more detail on monitoring of specific projects, including both monitoring plans and evaluation of outcomes. Evaluation needs to include evaluation at the watershed- to subbasin-level.
Comments:
This proposal requests funding for a liaison to function as a planner and coordinator for the NPT's involvement in the Wallowa County and Grande Ronde Watershed plans. This proposal is a reasonable description of the need for planning and coordination and of the approach to be taken. Tasks described are reasonable, and some attention is paid to how to measure the impacts of this position would be useful. This proposal is for support for a planning position that is independent of any particular project; it would make more sense to integrate the position into related projects. The proposal makes a good case for the project based on the view that success of many rehabilitation projects depends on the cooperation of landowners. The proposal acknowledges that downstream problems for salmon may negate the effects of local improvements in habitat quality, but it would seem that rehabilitation of rivers in this watershed is a positive action for wildlife in general. The budget is modest. Although the objectives are reasonable and of value, reviewers noted that the proposer suggests that Objective 6 (improving habitat) will lead to construction of new steelhead and salmon production facilities. The proposal gives no scientific support for the desirability of such follow-up action, which goes well beyond the scope of the proposed work and is not supported by the ISRP at this time.
The panel noted that one cannot evaluate the scientific soundness of work from this proposal alone, so the planner should be funded as part of a proposal for the work to be done. However, the cost is modest, the need for a planner can be accepted, and the following proposal (9702500) is scientifically supportable, justifying the planner to implement it.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Keep at FY99 Allocation. Unclear objectives were more clearly defined. General reduction in the scope of the project.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Demonstrate why the planner is needed. Show how coordination and presence of planner will result in expected benefits for fish.
This ongoing project should be able to list specific activities that result from this coordination effort.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]