FY07-09 proposal 199901900

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Salmon

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: Funding will be required for work element "investigate trespass". Additional properties could be secured within the next three years therefore requiring funds for conservation easements into out-year expenses

Termination date: unknown
Comments: CSWCD will continue to develop proposals for conservation easements as long as landowners express interest, projects are biologically feasible and funds are available.

Final deliverables: Conservation Easements, Final Reports

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This project has changed so much since the ISRP site visit and previous review that it is unrecognizable. Previous ISRP comments were "Fundable in part for study of the importance of temperature as the potential limiting factor in the proposed study reach and to pursue passive activities such as purchase of priority easements and fencing projects. Temperature modeling similar to that alluded to in items 5 & 6 of the response, as well as additional physical and biological watershed assessment, will be crucial in assessing potential benefits of the project, including components of the heavy construction work. It is clear that the agencies involved have indeed done a nice job in getting local landowners poised to ‘collaborate on a single vision and to consider the reach in a holistic sense.’ Unfortunately, it is not clear to the ISRP that enhancement of anadromous fish populations will necessarily follow from all of the tasks. A watershed assessment should indicate the priorities of tasks in this project. For example, if high stream temperature generated upstream is the key limiting factor, the heavily engineered approach proposed in the project may be secondary in priority. Evidence that this reach provides a number of high quality thermal refuges and assessment of the potential to provide more should be given. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation." Reviewers were concerned that extensive (expensive) active restoration efforts in this 12-mile section might be ineffective because of overwhelming water temperature constraints. Apparently some temp modeling was done, but no results seem to be given. Instead this has evolved to be a 35% cost-share for a heavily-engineered rehab program with the US Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal lays out some benefits to control flooding, but the link to fish and wildlife is tenuous. Although the sponsors did temperature monitoring in 2002, they didn't analyze the data to justify the proposal. In other words, they've ignored the ISRP's recommendation from the province reviews and are seeking to acquire easements without assurance that benefits will accrue to fish and wildlife. Are reviewers to assume that they going to exclude grazing? What are they going to construct? What are their methods? What are they going to monitor? Is monitoring/project assessment left to others not mentioned here? Monitoring remains in the planning process. Apparently, to date (since 1999) $800k of BPA money has been spent and one 180 acre easement has been secured.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This project has changed so much since the ISRP site visit and previous review that it is unrecognizable. Previous ISRP comments were "Fundable in part for study of the importance of temperature as the potential limiting factor in the proposed study reach and to pursue passive activities such as purchase of priority easements and fencing projects. Temperature modeling similar to that alluded to in items 5 & 6 of the response, as well as additional physical and biological watershed assessment, will be crucial in assessing potential benefits of the project, including components of the heavy construction work. It is clear that the agencies involved have indeed done a nice job in getting local landowners poised to ‘collaborate on a single vision and to consider the reach in a holistic sense.’ Unfortunately, it is not clear to the ISRP that enhancement of anadromous fish populations will necessarily follow from all of the tasks. A watershed assessment should indicate the priorities of tasks in this project. For example, if high stream temperature generated upstream is the key limiting factor, the heavily engineered approach proposed in the project may be secondary in priority. Evidence that this reach provides a number of high quality thermal refuges and assessment of the potential to provide more should be given. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation." Reviewers were concerned that extensive (expensive) active restoration efforts in this 12-mile section might be ineffective because of overwhelming water temperature constraints. Apparently some temp modeling was done, but no results seem to be given. Instead this has evolved to be a 35% cost-share for a heavily engineered rehab program with the US Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal lays out some benefits to control flooding, but the link to fish and wildlife is tenuous. Although the sponsors did temperature monitoring in 2002, they didn't analyze the data to justify the proposal. In other words, they've ignored the ISRP's recommendation from the province reviews and are seeking to acquire easements without assurance that benefits will accrue to fish and wildlife. Are reviewers to assume that they going to exclude grazing? What are they going to construct? What are their methods? What are they going to monitor? Is monitoring/project assessment left to others not mentioned here? Monitoring remains in the planning process. Apparently, to date (since 1999) $800k of BPA money has been spent and one 180-acre easement has been secured.