FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 199608000

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

Inflation, salary increases for existing personnel, additional equipment needs, increases in fire protection costs, plant community restoration, and increased conservation enforcement efforts.

Reason for change in scope

Additional funding has been requested for conservation enforcement efforts during high use periods in spring and fall. The need for an active law enforcement presence was identified during development of the draft Manageemnt Plan (in preparation). On two occasions, NPT property was stolen from the project areaPresence of NPT Fisheries Enforcement personnel on the property will help enforce use policies such as road closures, deter criminal activities, improve compliance with existing fish and game laws, and protect treaty rights. It also addresses the need for improved conservation law enforcement as stated in the subbasin summary (Nowak, 2001;160).

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

The O & M budget is expected to drop after FY 2005 because fence construction should be completed by that time. After FY 2005, fence maintenance will be on-going but less expensive than the initial construction costs. The Travel budget appears high because, in part, the NPT charges all vehicle leases and mileage to this line item rather than the Supply and Materials line item. Additionally, because of the extremely remote location of the project, field crews must camp on site during the week so are provided with per diem ($15.00 per day) for meals. At approximately $60.00 per week per employee, these costs escalate quickly and 'inflate' the Travel budget. Very little money is actually budgeted for training or in-state travel.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The glaring problem with the proposal is the lack of a long-term management plan, which is still not complete after 5 years of project operation. The presentation indicated that the management plan is about 2/3 complete and will be ready for review in Fall 2001, but the objectives of the current proposal should be established in reference to the management objectives. How will the wildlife management objectives for this land be developed? Will objectives for fish be included?

Further, the description of monitoring is sketchy. The proposal is much improved over previous submissions, and does present a good general discussion of monitoring approaches/techniques with emphasis on target species. However, the monitoring and evaluation should be done in reference to a set of measurable objectives that will determine what data are needed. The monitoring should include a strong aquatic component because of the presence of Joseph Creek. Will cultural components be included in monitoring? The cost of monitoring birds seems unreasonably high and annual HEP surveys are not likely needed.

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.

The absence of specific objectives leads to a very habitat based approach, rather than a series of habitat actions taken to achieve specified objectives in terms of wildlife quantity, composition, and density. It involves the control of noxious weeds, replanting of damaged riparian areas, conversion of cultivated lands to native species, exclusion fencing for livestock, increasing law enforcement, maintain living facilities, upgrading office facilities. No information is provided on specific methods to be used (e.g. restoration of agricultural lands). Methods are referenced as being in the Precious Lands Area Management Plan, but, this is still "in preparation" and thus unavailable to reviewers. The apparently extensive noxious weed control project (as judged by its high line-item cost) is still a concern to reviewers and requires explanation/justification. A fire suppression plan and an integrated weed control program are still "to be developed." The term "adaptive management" is used to describe the fire and weed programs that will be developed, but no specifics are given as to when and how this will be done. The proposal adds an enforcement component in response to thefts and vandalism in the past year and to enforce road closures and educate public. This seems reasonable. The question of whether maintaining access roads and facilities is beneficial for fish and wildlife has been addressed in terms of personnel access to restoration projects. Justification of a full time site manager is not given. The travel cost continues to appear high. Although some explanation of the cost of on-site work is provided, the large amount of on-site work is not explained or itemized. The proposers should explain the request for funds to upgrade the NPT offices to be handicapped compliant. This type of expenditure would normally be included in indirect costs.

Comment:

Comment:

This project should not receive long-term funding without a management plan that includes clear objectives and M&E. The response does not provide critical information for scientific review. Reviewers have previously noted that the project should provide a management plan that states targets, provides rationale for actions to meet these targets, and provides for evaluation of actions. This plan still has not been provided, the response clarifies that it is in only an early stage of development, and its absence generates many problems for evaluating the scientific soundness of the proposed management expenditures. The response clarifies why a management plan has been viewed as a low priority to date, but that does not solve the current problem of scientific evaluation of the proposal, which requires more substantial presentation of goals and methods of management and evaluation of outcomes. The project has many strong points, but the management and evaluation plans should be subject to independent scientific review.

Further, the description of monitoring is sketchy. Management actions are still being confused with management objectives (e.g. question 2 response). Specific answers are lacking to questions about how long term management objectives will be developed, whether in fact fish objectives will be added to the plan, which cultural components will be monitored, whether monitoring will be made consistent with the NRCS National Resource Inventory. Responses rely on "to be developed", "could be added", "efforts will be made", rather than providing specific answers to reviewer questions. The response continues to miss the point that long-term objectives are needed before monitoring takes place, so that progress toward achieving objectives can be monitored, rather than just monitoring activities.

To assist in establishing 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.

The response also leaves several budgetary matters unexplained. The response does not provide justification for a full time manager, just explains that it is the lead project biologist. The response regarding expenditures on the NPT offices does not address the indirect cost question explicitly. The question is whether these expenditures are a normal component of indirect costs or whether a separate line is justified. These are BPA contracting matters.

Comment:

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
NA

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
NA

Comment:

ISRP recommended Fund in Part to complete a management plan on both ongoing projects. Without a management plan and monitoring and evaluation plan, ISRP believed long-term funding could not be justified and the projects were not amenable to scientific review. ISRP supported the Precious Lands expansion and commented favorably on the Ladd Marsh expansion as justified. Bonneville echoed the ISRP comments on the development of a management plan as part of their conditional funding recommendation on the ongoing aspects of Precious Lands and Ladd Marsh. Bonneville, however, could not support the expansion of either property citing "future funding of wildlife mitigation in this area will be contingent upon resolution of wildlife crediting issues. It appears that there are no further construction/inundation credits available to be applied against this proposed project."

The Council supports funding these ongoing projects. ODFW has indicated they are in the process of developing a management plan for the Ladd Marsh area and that the management plan will justify the request for additional dollars above the FY01 base budget for operations and maintenance and monitoring and evaluation. Similarly, the Nez Perce Tribe have not completed their management plan, but are in the stages of developing that plan. They have requested new money to enhance the monitoring and evaluation component of 199608000, which should help address ISRP concerns about the overall M&E aspects of the project. The Council would recommend these management plans should be completed within the first year of the funding cycle and should receive ISRP review, but activities in FY02 should go forward on these projects prior to completion of the management plan. Requiring a management plan prior to securing the habitat is at odds with past Council practice in implementing these types of projects. Rather, the Council expects a project sponsor to articulate why a particular piece of property if immediately protected, and eventually enhanced, would contribute to meeting program goals. If that showing is made, the Council has supported the project, and left the development and review of a management plan to the sponsor and Bonneville as a contracting condition.

ISRP emphasized numerous contracting issues in which it questioned specific cost elements of the proposed work in project 199608000. Specific questions of ISRP and some Council staff relate to the fencing costs associated with the project, justification for a full time manager, and expenditures on NPT offices as an element of indirect cost. Both ISRP and the Council would recommend that the sponsor and Bonneville address these elements through contracting.

Expansion of both properties appears justified. Bonneville's website lists the Lower Snake projects, where wildlife credits would be applied for these projects, standing at 52 percent mitigated. Discussions with Bonneville staff indicate that not all projects credited to the Lower Snake projects have received an accounting. The projects Bonneville notes as still outstanding would not appear to account for 48 percent of the mitigation for the Lower Snake projects. Both Precious Lands and Ladd Marsh would represent high quality habitat that would enhance the value wildlife mitigation credited against the Lower Snake projects and we believe available under the Council's fish and wildlife program. The areas to be acquired are modest, and almost certainly within the remaining crediting that is available.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website