FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200200700
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 |
|---|---|
| 24017 Narrative | Narrative |
| 24017 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| Mountain Columbia: Blackfoot Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Columbia: Blackfoot Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restoring Bull Trout Habitat in The Blackfoot River's North Fork |
| Proposal ID | 200200700 |
| Organization | Trout Unlimited's Western Water Project (TU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Stan Bradshaw |
| Mailing address | 321 East Main St. #411 Bozeman, MT 59715 |
| Phone / email | 4064499922 / sbradshaw@tu.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Laura Ziemer, Trout Unlimited |
| Review cycle | Mountain Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Blackfoot |
| Short description | Comprehensive bull trout recovery project aimed at instream restoration and streamflow enhancement, using irrigation efficiencies projects and habitat restoration in combination with voluntary water leasing. |
| Target species | Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.05 | -112.98 | North Fork Blackfoot River |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1998 | North Fork Fish Screens and Diversions |
| 1998 | North Fork Instream Restoration |
| 1997 | Rock Creek Instream and Riparian Restoration |
| 1997 | Salmon Creek Instream and Riparian Restoration |
| 2000 | Kleinschmidt Creek Instream and Riparian Restoration |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| We are not aware of any other BPA projects on the Blackfoot River. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning and design will all be through agency in-kind contributions | 2 | $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. Stream Restoration and Flow Enhancement | a. Convert all five North Fork irrigation ditches from open ditches to pip lines and converting flood irrigation practices to sprinkler irrigation. | 2 | $150,000 | Yes |
| b. Convert both Salmon Creek irrigation systems from flood irrigation systems to sprinkler irrigation, and lining delivery ditches. | 1 | $60,000 | Yes | |
| c. Convert one Rock Creek irrigation diversion from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation. | 2 | $12,000 | Yes | |
| d. Purshase water lease from an irrigator in lower Rock Creek for instream flow benefits. (For up to thirty years) | 1 | $75,000 | ||
| e. Restoration of three miles of Rock Creek to its original pattern profile and dimensions to rehabilitate last remaining degraded section of Rock Creek. | 2 | $220,000 | Yes | |
| f. Instream Restoration of Kleinschmidt Creek including removal of rock dams. | 1 | $150,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Leasing Conserved Water to Protect Instream Flows | a. Conduct site visits with each landowner involved in water leasing. | 1 | $4,000 | |
| b. Conduct water rights analysis on the North Fork, Rock Creek, Kleinschmidt Creek and Salmon Creek. | 1 | $8,000 | ||
| c. Negotiate lease agreements with each landowner. | 1 | $2,000 | ||
| d. Submit "Change of Use" applications to MT Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation, and close transactions. | 1 | $7,300 | ||
| e. Measure and monitor: work with DNRC, USFWS, and MT FWP on instream flow measuring and monitoring of required water rights. Coordinate with federal and state biologists to develop methods to appropriately monitor ecological values. | 1 | $12,000 | ||
| 3. In-kind Irrigation Equipment | a. Landowner to purchase sprinkler irrigation system | 1 | $50,000 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Supervision and direction of sub-contractors' work. (In-kind agency donation) | 2 | $0 | ||
| 2. Annual maintenance on restored habitat to ensure native vegetation takes root, sedimentation is controlled and new riparian fencing is intact. (In-kind agency donation) | 5 | $0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring streamflows to ensure appropriate use of water protected as instream flows, long-term viability of restoration work and evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration | 5 | $12,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring streamflows to ensure appropriate use of water protected as instream flows, long-term viability of restoration work and evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration | 2003 | 2006 | $40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $29,000 | |
| Supplies | $63,500 | |
| Travel | $2,800 | |
| NEPA | acgency in-kind | $0 |
| Subcontractor | $592,000 | |
| Other | Water Leasing | $75,000 |
| $762,300 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $762,300 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $433,172 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $329,128 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
** Please see comments under "Other budget explanation."
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited | Non-dedicated contribution | $63,836 | cash |
| USFWS | Non-dedicated contribution | $25,000 | cash |
| MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks | Non-dedicated contribution | $30,500 | cash |
| Chutney Foundation | Non-dedicated contribution | $133,836 | cash |
| MT Department of Transportation | Non-dedicated contribution | $130,000 | cash |
| Local Landowner | Irrigation Equipment | $50,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
** In the "Total estimated budget" section listed above, the row titled "Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds," actually represents the amount already committed through cost-sharing partners. This proposal is requesting that BPA contribute $329,128.00 to be matched with the $433,172.00 already committed by the other partners. Without including the cost-share amount in that particular table, the "total budget request amount" reflected the total cost of the project, rather than that portion of the cost that this proposal specifically addresses.
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. It was unfortunate that the sponsors did not present. Without a subbasin summary it is hard to determine the priority of this effort in the province; however, the proposal appears to offer greater flow in these tributaries. Upon the reviewers' independent inquiry, it appears the water would remain instream for the benefit of fish; however, the response should describe the legal assurances that the water will remain instream for the benefit of fish. Although the proposal seems like a good approach to protect a strong existing population, the response should make a stronger case that bull trout in the North Fork are in jeopardy. What evidence exists to show that spawning and rearing area in tributaries limits the size of this population?Reviewers need assurances that MDFWP is doing appropriate monitoring; e.g. Page 13, Objective 2. The number of juvenile bull trout also will be influenced by population size. It will be difficult (require extended data series) to separate effects of habitat improvements from effects of population density. What is the monitoring plan?
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
(High Priority - pending further discussion)
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
A subbasin summary has not been developed for this subbasin. Sponsor's request if for $330,000 for FY 2002. CBFWA encourages stakeholders in the subbasin to develop a subbasin summary in the short term to demonstrate the need for this project.Comment:
Fundable, the response is adequate. Although the project offers benefits to bull trout in the project area, the ISRP questions the priority of this to ESA listed bull trout populations. The response to the ISRP comments regarding jeopardy of bull trout in the project area is not convincing. Arguments are based on the "belief" that the population will benefit from the proposed actions rather than any objective evidence that the population is in jeopardy. In fact, the population is characterized as one of three "strong holds" for bull trout in the Blackfoot Watershed; consequently, this effort may have little impact on removing the larger bull trout population from jeopardy. The funding agency should examine the structure, dynamics, and diversity required for bull trout viability in this part of their range and determine whether or not habitat improvement for the Blackfoot population(s) is a key element in that determination. If it is not, available resources may be more appropriately applied to meeting bull trout viability in the regional population.Letters from USFWS and Montana DNRC contained a great deal of specific, relevant information. The latter confirms that water "saved" will remain in-channel and the relatively large amount of new water flow involved should provide major biological benefits for at least the short term. The proposed leases may be from 10 to 30 years depending on conditions; thus, it is not clear that any benefits produced by the project will be protected in perpetuity. To offer long-term benefits, the lease should contain provisions for renewal or should be for longer-terms. The response provides that adequate fish population monitoring will be done (by MTFWP, not funded here). If the data being obtained for parent population size (redd counts), and indices of the abundance of juveniles produced by each brood, are obtained by consistent and reliable methods, the monitoring program described can provide (in time) data needed to correct for effects of population density on survival. Compelling evidence is also provided that the project should lead to significant increases in bull trout spawning and rearing (and enhance bull trout passage in Rock Creek) in the sites involved.
BPA Funding Recommendation
Fundable after Subbasin Planning w/cond
May 30, 2001
Comment:
- The Blackfoot is identified as one of the bull trout core areas in the Montana's Roundtable recovery plan. We agree that the state or Trout Unlimited should get longer-term agreements for the water use or at least an option. There is also a question of the value of spring creek's bull trout use.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 believes this project will have substantial biological benefits to bull trout in the Blackfoot watershed and will proceed with implementation in advance of subbasin planning. We are concerned, however, that a subbasin summary was never completed for the Blackfoot and request that particular attention is paid to addressing this deficiency in subbasin planning.
Comment:
Delayed implementation. Realigned. Other funding secured to compensate. Need to follow up with sponsor for 05.
Comment: