FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27008

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
27008 Narrative	Narrative
27008 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
27008 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Grande Ronde River Riparian Restoration
Proposal ID	27008
Organization	Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District Office, Baker Field Office (BLM)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Todd Kuck
Mailing address	3165 10th Street Baker City, OR 97814
Phone / email	5415231288 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Penny Woods, Baker BLM Resource Area Field Manager
Review cycle	Blue Mountain
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short description	Enhance and restore riparian and native vegetation along the Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers to reduce sedimentation and improve riparian and instream habitat. Map of general project area is included under the narrative.
Target species	Snake River steelhead, Snake River fall and spring/summer chinook salmon, and bull trout.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.623	-117.7217	Wallowa River at Minam
45.7253	-117.783	Wallowa River at confluence with Grande Ronde River near Rondowa
46.078	-116.9777	Mouth of Grande Ronde River at confluence with the Snake River
45.902	-117.377	Approximate location of large woody debris input into Little Courtney creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 153
Habitat RPA Action 155
RM&E RPA Action 183

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
2001	Planting of approximately 3000 hardwoods along the Lower Grande Ronde River will occur this November. The trees for this project are currently growing at the nursery. All other accomplishments listed below have been completed.
2001	Six riparian flats, encompassing approximately 20 acres total, adjacent to the Lower Grande Ronde River were planted to re-establish conifers
2001	Placement of large woody debris and fencing to limit livestock grazing in Dark Canyon along 0.1 miles of stream channel.
2001	Approximately 12 acres of noxious weed treatment and native grass seeding along riparian area of the Lower Grande Ronde and tributaries.
97-01	Aerial monitoring flights of BLM grazing leases along the Lower Grande Ronde River. These flights are focused on monitoring riparian areas to ensure compliance with the Biological Assessment.
2001	Temperature and water quality monitoring of 16 sites within the Grande Ronde subbasin
2001	Contributed over $20,000 to Wallowa Resources to help fund noxious weed personnel
2001	Approximately 200 acres tretated for noxious weeds by spot treatments with herbicides and hand pulling.
2001	Surveyed approximately 3000 acres for Threatened and Endangered plant species
2001	Inventoried approximately 5000 acres for new weed sites
93-01	From 1993 to the present time, the BLM has constructed and maintained at least 14 exclosures along the Grande Ronde and tributaries, protecting 4 miles of stream and over 40 acres of riparian area.
2000	Five riparian flats adjacent to the Lower Grande Ronde River, for a total of approximately 25 acres, were planted to re-establish conifers.
2000	Decommissioning of approximately 0.4 miles of road.
2000	Culvert removal and restoration of road crossing to natural channel gradient.
2000	Temperature and water quality monitoring of 13 sites within the Grande Ronde subbasin
2000	Aerial monitoring flights of BLM grazing leases along the Lower Grande Ronde River.
2000	245 acres were treated for noxious weeds by aerially spraying, spot treatments with herbicides, and hand pulling.
2000	Helped establish and partially fund with over $20,000 a new weeds position through Wallowa Resources.
2000	Four new bio-control agents released to help control noxious weeds.
2000	Approximately 2500 acres inventoried for new weed sites
2000	Surveyed approximately 1500 acres for Threatened and Endangered plant species
1999	BLM provided funding for 22 miles of Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife aquatic habitat inventories (Hankin and Reeves surveys)
1999	Temperature and water quality monitoring of 14 sites within the Grande Ronde subbasin
1999	285 acres were treated for noxious weeds by aerially spraying, spot treatments with herbicides, and hand pulling.
1999	Surveyed approximately 500 acres for Threatened and Endangered plant species
1999	Inventoried approximately 1000 acres for new weed sites
1999	Released 20 new bio-control agents.
1998	Temperature and water quality monitoring of 7 sites within the Grande Ronde subbasin
1994	22.3 miles of tributaries to the Lower Grande Ronde were flown to acquire low-level aerial photography of riparian areas.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program	BLM participates in coordination meetings with the model watershed, and is a partner this year in the Grouse Creek stream restoration.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Complete Environmental Assessment (EA) for restoration activities	a. Conduct field review with Interdisciplinary (ID) team	1	$4,310
	b. Have ID team write staff reports and complete EA	1	$11,000
	c. Have Fisheries Biologist complete consultation with NMFS and USFWS	1	$2,750
2. Survey proposed conifer planting sites for 2003-2006	d. Visit proposed planting sites to estimate number of conifers to be planted, figure out access, and gather information for planting contract.	ongoing	$1,775
3. Survey proposed sites for hardwood and native grass and sedge planting for 2002-2006	e. Visit proposed planting sites to gather information for planting contract	ongoing	$1,575
4. Design monitoring plan	f. Research and document techniques to be used for monitoring and evaluation	1	$0
5. Identify noxious weed treatment areas	g. Visit proposed treatment areas, coordinate these treatments so that they are not impacting planting treatment areas	ongoing	$1,575

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Identify planting sites	2003	2005	$4,800
2. Identify noxious weed treatment areas	2003	2006	$6,400
3. Keeping regulatory agencies updated on consultation requirements	2003	2006	$5,600

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$4,600	$4,600	$4,600	$3,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Protect planted seedlings	a. Install wire cages and/or big game repellant to protect seedlings from browsing after planting	ongoing	$14,170
2. Increase streambank stability and decrease sediment	b. Collect hardwood cuttings to increase stock at nursery	1	$2,725
	c. Plant rooted hardwood stock from nursery	ongoing	$13,375	Yes
	d. Collect seed from native grasses, sedges, and shrubs to be grown for increase at nursery	ongoing	$28,500	Yes
	e. Implement seed increase plots at Medford BLM nursery	2	$37,500	Yes
	f. Treat noxious weeds on riparian flats before tree planting and seeding	ongoing	$23,200	Yes
	g. Seeding/planting of riparian flats and adjacent uplands with native grasses, sedges, and/or shrubs	ongoing	$57,250	Yes
3. Exclude cattle grazing from riparian areas and stream channels to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs and encourage restoration of riparian species	h. Fencing riparian portions of pastures to exclude livestock grazing.	ongoing	$27,750	Yes
4. Implement planned riparian restoration of Courtney Creek area	i. Falling of large woody debris into Little Courtney creek	1	$5,200	Yes
	j. Seeding of approximately 50 acres of riparian area along Courtney creek and Little Courtney creek	1	$12,775	Yes
5. Continue restoration of acquired pastures and farmland and historically grazed areas adjacent to Grande Ronde River with conifer planting	k. Plant areas adjacent to Grande Ronde River that historically supported conifers with seedlings grown at nursery	ongoing	$30,850	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Protect planted seedlings	2003	2006	$56,680
2. Increase streambank stability and decrease sediment	2003	2006	$474,300
3. Exclude cattle grazing from riparian areas and stream channels to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs and encourage restoration of riparian species	2003	2006	$111,000
4. Continue restoration of acquired pastures and farmland and historically grazed areas adjacent to Grande Ronde River with conifer planting	2003	2006	$123,400

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$210,095	$185,095	$185,095	$185,095

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Prevent seedling mortality due to wildlife browsing	a. Maintenance of existing tubing on seedlings	ongoing	$2,350
2. Ensure riparian areas are not being grazed by livestock	b. Maintenance of exclosures and fences	ongoing	$6,750	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Prevent seedling mortality due to wildlife browsing	2003	2006	$9,400
2. Ensure riparian areas are not being grazed by livestock	2003	2006	$27,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$9,100	$9,100	$9,100	$9,100

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Ensure survival and protection of planted conifers and hardwoods	a. Conduct survival surveys	ongoing	$2,125
	b. Monitor effectiveness of seedling protection measures (cages, big game repellant, tubing)	ongoing	$2,125
2. Ensure noxious weed treatments are successful	c. Monitor effectiveness of treated areas. Recommend re-treatments where necessary to obtain desired outcome	ongoing	$5,500	Yes
3. Ensure germination and survival of seeded areas	d. Monitor seeded areas for germination success and survival. Re-treat where necessary.	ongoing	$2,125
4. Ensure large woody debris placed in Courtney Creek area is functioning as planned	e. Monitor stability of large woody debris and effectiveness of project to capture fine sediments	ongoing	$375
5. Ensure upward trend of riparian areas, increased bank stabilization, and decreased sediment along the Grande Ronde river and tributaries	f. Install photo-points to document control of noxious weeds, vegetation establishment, and increases in bank stability	ongoing	$6,350
	g. Install bank-pins to measure soil loss at selected locations.	ongoing	$2,375
6. Report monitoring results annually	h. Prepare annual monitoring report.	ongoing	$1,375
	i. Post monitoring results on internet and share with Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project	ongoing	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Ensure survival and protection of planted conifers and hardwoods	2003	2006	$17,000
2. Ensure noxious weed treatments are successful	2003	2006	$22,000
3. Ensure germination and survival of seeded areas	2003	2006	$8,500
4. Ensure large woody debris placed in Courtney Creek area is functioning as planned	2003	2006	$1,500
5. Ensure upward trend of riparian areas, increased bank stabilization, and decreased sediment along the Grande Ronde river and tributaries	2003	2006	$20,900
6. Report monitoring results annually	2003	2006	$5,500

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$18,850	$18,850	$18,850	$18,850

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 9.1 permanent work-months, and 5 term/seasonal work-months	$65,975
Fringe	BLM used a fixed cost per work-month above which included the fringe benefits	$0
Supplies	Native seed, conifers, big game repellant, seedling cages, monitoring equipment, fencing supplies	$55,450
Travel	Travel and per diem costs for contract administration, seed collection, monitoring, ID team review	$14,505
Indirect	Money to BLM nursery to grow and deliver hardwoods, and to develop native grass seed increase plots	$42,500
Capital	None	$0
NEPA	NEPA costs are included in personnel since BLM will do all NEPA, consultation, and required permits	$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor	Planting rooted hardwood stock along Grande Ronde river bank	$12,000
Subcontractor	Aerial seeding of areas treated for noxious weeds	$12,500
Subcontractor	Falling of large woody debris into Little Courtney creek	$4,800
Subcontractor	Aerial seeding of riparian area of Little Courtney and Courtney creek	$5,000
Subcontractor	Planting of conifers along Grande Ronde river	$22,000
Subcontractor	Fencing to exclude livestock grazing in riparian areas	$25,000
Subcontractor	Maintenance of existing exclosures	$3,000
Subcontractor	Noxious weed treatment along riparian areas of Wallowa and Grande Ronde rivers	$20,000
Subcontractor	Collection of native grass and shrub seed	$25,000
		$307,730

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$307,730
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$307,730
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
BLM	Cost of work-months for permanent personnel to conduct a portion of the following duties: NEPA, contract administration, collection of seed and cuttings, some seeding of noxious weed areas, and monitoring	$49,975	in-kind
BLM	Provide vehicles for personnel to carry out all phases of the project	$7,200	in-kind
BLM	Supplies and printing of Environmental Assessment and Monitoring reports	$500	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. The work may be fundable, but the proposed actions do not appear to be of high priority. The land being considered for restoration does not appear to be in need of immediate active remedial action.

This proposal is to perform riparian restoration on land acquired by the BLM in 1993. Good background is provided as to the common value of restoration of riparian areas. The BLM wants to control noxious weeds, establish native species, fence riparian areas, and continue maintenance of existing exclosures on this land. Both the Grande Ronde and Wallowa Rivers are on the 303d list for various factors. The presentation gave numbers of conifers, grasses and shrubs planted. Noxious weed treatments, riparian fencing, and large woody debris placement were also described. Monitoring was described in terms of seedling survival, seedling protection, noxious weed control, weed seeding termination and large woody debris, but a monitoring plan is not yet in place and most monitoring methods are listed without adequate detail. It is not clear whether monitoring includes any attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of active measures versus that of simple protection of land and allowance of passive restoration. The rationale and significance to the FWP are clear. However, the goals and objectives are confused. Two of the three listed objectives are actually tasks. Actions listed as "specific projects goals" are also tasks.

Given that this is BLM land purchased with the intent of restoration, and that BLM has already been conducting some of the restoration activities, including some of the NEPA EA work, why should this be a matter of BPA rather than BLM funding?

The review group also 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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Although an M&E plan was absent from the proposal, the sponsor indicated that efforts would be undertaken to develop such a plan following the completion of NEPA activities. Reviewers suggest the work, which will occur entirely on BLM property, would not provide benefits in the mainstem; however, significant results could be realized in Courtney Creek. Reviewers suggest that this work could be implemented/coordinated through Project 199202601. The NMFS indicated that they would like to see an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of these activities relative to the abundance/status of fish populations. This project may address RPA 400.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable, but low priority. This proposal is to perform riparian restoration on land acquired by the BLM in 1993. The BLM wants to control noxious weeds, establish native species, fence riparian areas, and continue maintenance of existing exclosures on this land. Both the Grande Ronde and Wallowa Rivers are on the 303d list for various factors. However, the land being considered for restoration does not appear to be in need of immediate active remedial action so this work cannot be viewed as of high priority. The land has been secured protection from active degradation. Nothing in the proposal, response, or presentation convinced the ISRP that the land was in need of immediate active restoration. Further, the response states that M&E plans will be set up in FY 2002, so the work currently lacks the required M&E component. The response suggests that the proponents anticipate success of their methods so plan primarily to document that success. The response emphasizes that proactive attention to small degraded areas will produce larger benefits overall by preventing further degradation. However, it does not convince reviewers that riparian degradation will necessarily increase on land for which harmful practices have ceased.

Regarding the question of why this project is a BPA, rather than BLM, responsibility, the justification is offered that acquired land only augments existing land managed by BLM for some time. No detail on the proportions of these two types of land is given; however, the larger point remains that BLM is in the position of looking for soft money to perform restoration activities for riparian damage incurred under their management. Is the implication of this situation that there would be no assurance of continuity in BLM riparian restoration without continuing FWP funding?

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.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Increase juvenile and adult survival by restoring riparian and native vegetation along the Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers to reduce sedimentation and improve riparian and instream habitat.

Comments
Proposal is to perform riparian restoration on land acquired by the BLM in 1993. Why request for BPA funding instead of BLM funding? M&E program is not in place and most monitoring methods listed lack adequate detail. It is not clear whether monitoring includes any attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of active measures on fish populations versus that of simple protection of land and allowance of passive restoration.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is complete and is reviewed under BPA's policy for funding habitat projects on federal lands.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: