FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27004
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 |
|---|---|
| 27004 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Grande Ronde and Imnaha Stream Channel Complexity and Fish Passage Barrier Inventory, Prioritization and Remediation |
| Proposal ID | 27004 |
| Organization | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Ken Bierly |
| Mailing address | 775 Summer St., Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301-1290 |
| Phone / email | 5039860182 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Georffery A. Huntington |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | This 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 species | Spring Chinook, Summer Steelhead, Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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 agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 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 ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design and Implement 20 high priority projects @ $40,000 | 3 | 6 | $104,196 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $80,980 | $80,980 | $40,000 | $40,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design andImplement Priority projects 20@ $40,000 | 3 | 6 | $104,196 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $200,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2002 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
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.
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.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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits 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
Comment:
Do not recommend BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154
Comment: