FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200201000
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 |
|---|---|
| 24003 Narrative | Narrative |
| 24003 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Intermountain: Pend Oreille Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire and conserve high priority bull and westslope cutthroat trout habitat in Trestle Creek. |
| Proposal ID | 200201000 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Chris Downs |
| Mailing address | 1402 E. Spring Creek Rd. Clark Fork, ID 83811 |
| Phone / email | 2082661141 / cdowns@sandpoint.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Charles E. Corsi |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Pend Oreille Upper |
| Short description | Purchase conservation easements of fee title interests on 500 acres of private land in the Trestle Creek watershed. |
| Target species | Bull trout Westslope cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.3 | -116.28 | Trestle Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Purchased fee title to 2 parcels of Trestle Creek riparian habitat in key bull trout spawning area (25 acres). Currently in negotiations to purchase an adjacent additional 70 acres. Currently negotiating cosnervation easements on 80 additional acres |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Establish property-specific conservation objectives for private lands in the Trestle Creek watershed. | a. Develop land ownership maps b. Identify priority properties and determine desired land use. | 1 | $0 | |
| 2. Negotiate conservation acquisitions | a. Determine properties for sale, contract for appraisal and hazmat information and enter into negotiations with landowners. b. For not-for-sale properties, contact and inform landowners about the program | 1 | $20,000 | Yes |
| 3. Secure matching funding from other sources | a. Prepare and submit requests to Avista for matching funds. | 1 | $0 |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Secure permanent protection of critical bull and westslope cutthroat spawning and rearing areas in Trestle (500 acres) Creek through conservation purchases. | a. Complete conservation transactions. | 1 | $250,400 | Yes |
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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Long-term stewardship of easements/acquisitions | a. Enforce easement terms and conditions | in perpetuity | $20,000 | Yes |
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 | $0 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Travel | $0 | |
| Indirect | IDFG overhead costs | $50,400 |
| Capital | $200,000 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | Contract with Inland Nortwest Land Trust of Sandpoint, Idaho to negotiate conservation transactions. | $20,000 |
| Other | Long-term monitoring of easements/Acquisitions | $20,000 |
| $290,400 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $290,400 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $290,400 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avista Corporation | Funding | $350,000 | cash |
| One full time employee | $50,000 | cash | |
| US EPA/ID DEQ | 319 Funds | $50,000 | cash |
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
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
Fundable, but a response is needed to describe the monitoring plan for which funding is requested. A map showing the watershed and those easements acquired and under consideration is also needed.This is a high priority project for bull trout in this subbasin. It is a well-written proposal to obtain conservation easements and fee titles to riparian land along Trestle Creek, important bull trout habitat. Avista Corporation is also a significant contributor to this effort. The proposal makes a convincing case for the importance of the land acquisition benefits it will bring to protection of bull trout habitat. It identifies key factors that are likely to contribute to success. More detail could have been provided on how conservation objectives will be defined for each parcel and how parcels will be prioritized. It would also be useful to have the proposed acquisitions put into a context of total habitat needs.
Comment:
Concern was raised as to the inconsistency of the ISRP comments on acquisition projects. The cost share portion of this project will be providing the monitoring activities for these actions.Comment:
Fundable, this is a strong proposal. The ISRP's concerns were answered satisfactorily. There was evidence of an exceptionally strong bull trout monitoring program, funded elsewhere, that included redd counts, a weir to enumerate adults, and a trap to estimate juvenile outmigrants. A general response is provided on conservation objectives that include adequate response regarding acquisitions in the context of total habitat needs. However, it is not clear how the mean monthly discharge data will be used to produce recommendations for minimum in-stream flow reservations.Comment:
This project should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed in our cover letter. We have no comments in addition to the ISRP/CBFWA review comments.Comment:
Bonneville provided the Council substantial comments on the projects proposed for funding in this province. Bonneville put the project into eight separate categories as follows:
Category 1. Fund - ESA BiOp Projects that meet both the needs of the Council Fish and Wildlife program and the ESA requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Opinion for operation of the Upper Columbia FCRPS dams and should be fully funded with qualifications as needed.
Category 2. Fund - Ongoing Projects, which should be fully funded.
Category 3. Fund In Part or with Qualifications - Ongoing projects that should be funded with the stated qualifications.
Category 4. Fund In Part - New, includes two projects, which are a combination of ongoing projects and new projects designed for wildlife mitigation. The existing portions of these projects should be funded, but the wildlife mitigation objectives should not be funded for the reasons discussed later in this cover letter.
Category 5. Potential Funding After Completion of Subbasin Planning - No Comments/Qualifications, lists projects that should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed in our cover letter. We have no comments in addition to those provided by ISRP/CBFWA.
Category 6. Potential Funding After Completion of Subbasin Planning - With Comments/Qualifications, lists projects that should be reconsidered for funding after subbasin planning is completed as discussed later in this letter.
Category 7. Do Not Fund - Ongoing, lists projects that should not be funded to continue implementation of the current objectives based on our agreement with the technical review of the ISRP.
Category 8. Do Not Fund - New, lists projects that should not be funded based on our agreement with the ISRP comments on the scientific merit of the projects, or with CBFWA on the timing and need for the project.
The following list of six projects all received a fundable rating by the ISRP, and was ranked as high priority by CBFWA. Thus, these projects are all "consensus priorities" and under our proposed decision rule, are parts of the base of projects that the staff proposes the Council recommend funding. However, the Bonneville comments put the first four the following projects into category five, and the last two into category six -- meaning that it does not support funding these projects until after subbasin planning is completed. (As an aside, it is worth noting that the comments or qualifications that it proposes for the two projects in category six are not of the nature or type that they have to be resolved through subbasin planning -- the qualifications presented could be dealt with immediately).
- 24003 Acquire and conserve bull trout and westslope cutthroat habitat in Trestle Creek (Pend Oreille subbasin).
- 24005 Smith Creek Restoration (Kootenai subbasin)
- 24008 Genetic inventory of bull trout and westslope cutthroat in the Pend Oreille subbasin (Pend Oreille subbasin)
- 24012 Habitat preservation -- Weaver and McWinegar sloughs (Flathead subbasin)
- 24015 Wetland/Riparian Enhancement, Protection, Restoration in Coeur d' Alene subbasin
- 24017 Restoring bull trout habitat in Blackfoot River's North Fork (Blackfoot)
The issue presented is what appears to be a Bonneville prioritization or ranking of projects that meet fish and wildlife program standards and have ISRP and CBFWA support that subordinates them to ESA based projects. The staff concern is not that Bonneville is very diligent about trying to meet its ESA obligations, but rather, that it appears that its focus on those obligations may be coming at the expense of other obligations and projects pursuant to the fish and wildlife program, and that Bonneville is doing that sort of prioritizing without consultation with the Council. For example, as staff was developing this memorandum, we received a copy of a letter dated May 25, 2001 from Robert Austin to Chairman Cassidy "informing" the Council that Bonneville was going to fund six research oriented projects to meet what it understands to be the FCRPS Biological Opinion needs.
Thus, the six "fund/fund" projects that Bonneville would defer in the Mountain Columbia may be an indication Bonneville's ESA needs are in fact being advanced over other fish and wildlife program needs. Without any statement of reasons why these projects would be deferred, the fair inference is that Bonneville is doing something of a unilateral budgeting exercise. As a programmatic policy matter, the Council will need consider if and how it wishes to address this matter with Bonneville.
Comment:
Bonneville intends to fund this project as recommended.
Comment:
Project is Phase 3? Verify
Comment: