FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200203900
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 |
|---|---|
| 24005 Narrative | Narrative |
| Mountain Columbia: Kootenai Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Columbia: Kootenai Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Smith Creek Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 200203900 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Charles E. Corsi |
| Mailing address | 2750 Kathleen Avenue Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 |
| Phone / email | 2087691414 / ccorsi@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Greg Tourtlotte |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Kootenai |
| Short description | Restore lower Smith Creek stream channel to improve native fish habitat and complement wetland restoration. |
| Target species | kokanee, rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, burbot, bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.93 | -116.63 | Smith 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 |
|---|---|
| 1981 | IDFG fishery research provided baseline data on Smith Creek |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 198806500 | Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations | The proposed project will complement the Kootenai River Fsiheries Investigations project by providing additional data on tributary stocks of fish. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Stream channel restoration | a. provide channel design, identify costs, identify and secure permits | 1 | $50,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1a. Stream channel restoration design | $0 |
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. Stream channel restoration | b. restore historic stream channel and improve habitat | 1 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1b. Stream channel restoration implement channel restoration | 2003 | 2003 | $300,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $300,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Restore Smith Creek stream channel | c. monitor fishery response to improved habitat | 5 | $2,680 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1c. Restore Smith Creek channel and monitor fishery response | 2003 | 2006 | $8,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2,680 | $2,680 | $2,680 | $2,680 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: no new FTE, fund IDFG staff Oversight 20 man-days @$216/day; monitoring 7 man-days@$95/day | $4,985 |
| Fringe | 35% | $1,745 |
| Supplies | miscellaneous field gear, office supplies, etc. | $500 |
| Travel | per diem | $350 |
| Indirect | IDFG overhead at @21% | $9,100 |
| Subcontractor | design | $35,000 |
| Other | Equipment rental, mileage | $1,000 |
| $52,680 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $52,680 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $52,680 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Feb 9, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. This is a proposal to restore about one-half mile of lower Smith Creek between its mouth at the Kootenai River and an impassable falls approximately two miles upstream of the mouth. The intent is to improve habitat currently used by a remnant kokanee run from Kootenay Lake, through return of the stream to its natural channel. Restoration of this reach of Smith Creek would bypass the current ditch linking the creek at the floodplain edge directly to the river. This ditch has little useful fish habitat, whereas the restored original creek channel should have much more, both in quantity and quality. The restoration would be a component of overall wetland restoration in the adjacent lands under the NRCS's Wetland Reserve Program. Proposers have acted in cooperation with permitting agencies (COE, IDWR), and the project would complement a conservation management project of the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program. The project constitutes a practical alternative to a channel-cleaning project being proposed to protect private property from erosion. The panel applauded inclusion of explicit monitoring and evaluation tasks; which would monitor the effect of restored natural riparian habitat on several species of fish.The proposal is somewhat meager. The absence of a map was mitigated somewhat by the presentation, but location information should have been included in the proposal. Further, background on negative impacts of stream channelization, and specifics regarding salmonid habitat or lack thereof in the Kootenai River basin, is thin. Other BPA-funded or other projects are not mentioned. On the positive side, anticipated results from restoration are given, and the work is related to the Subbasin Summary and Idaho's 1996 fish management plan. Overall, although aspects of the proposal are lacking, the project would have a large benefit to fish and wildlife, and merits funding.
Comment:
CBFWA encourages the project sponsors to include physical environmental monitoring to measure the channel affects in terms of bank stabilization and vegetation success. This project will be one component in restoring a piece of property being placed in a NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program.Comment:
Fundable. This is a proposal to restore about one-half mile of lower Smith Creek between its mouth at the Kootenai River and an impassable falls approximately two miles upstream of the mouth. The intent is to improve habitat currently used by a remnant kokanee run from Kootenay Lake, through return of the stream to its natural channel. Restoration of this reach of Smith Creek would bypass the current ditch linking the creek at the floodplain edge directly to the river. This ditch has little useful fish habitat, whereas the restored original creek channel should have much more, both in quantity and quality. The restoration would be a component of overall wetland restoration in the adjacent lands under the NRCS's Wetland Reserve Program. Proposers have acted in cooperation with permitting agencies (COE, IDWR), and the project would complement a conservation management project of the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program. The project constitutes a practical alternative to a channel-cleaning project being proposed to protect private property from erosion. The panel applauded inclusion of explicit monitoring and evaluation tasks; which would monitor the effect of restored natural riparian habitat on several species of fish.
The proposal is somewhat meager. The absence of a map was mitigated somewhat by the presentation, but location information should have been included in the proposal. Further, background on negative impacts of stream channelization, and specifics regarding salmonid habitat or lack thereof in the Kootenai River basin, is thin. Other BPA-funded or other projects are not mentioned. On the positive side, anticipated results from restoration are given, and the work is related to the Subbasin Summary and Idaho's 1996 fish management plan. Overall, although aspects of the proposal are lacking, the project would have a large benefit to fish and wildlife, and merits funding.
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:
Although this project occurs in advance of subbasin planning, it appears that it will provide clear benefits to native fish species and will have a distinct planning and implementation phase with minimal out year costs. Bonneville will fund this project anticipating a 2002 planning and design phase and a 2003 implementation phase, with a small budget for monitoring and evaluation beginning in 2002 and continuing at least through 2006.
Comment:
Property changing hands - delay in implementation. Looks like DU may own property. Implementation pace uncertain.
Comment: