FY 2002 Mountain Columbia proposal 200200300

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

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The proposal claims to be responsive to the goal"... to rebuild to sustainable levels of weak, but recoverable, native populations injured by the hydropower system." To meet that goal, it proposes to secure"... habitats through land acquisition and conservation easements," and enhance"... existing and newly acquired habitats to maximize their value to fish and wildlife." Gaining control of land-use practices is a logical strategy for protecting habitats. It also is logical that available resources be applied where they will most likely facilitate restoration of viability in the target populations. Before any resources are committed to these agreements, population segments that are key to the long-term viability and productivity of the regional population, or populations, need to be identified. Pursuit of habitat protection for these segments can then proceed with some expectation of benefit to the population(s). Pursuit of agreements for "what is available" is not a systematic approach to the problem. One of the proposal objectives is "Develop prioritized property list." This task alone is fundable for one year, after which an evaluation of the need for the larger project could be considered.

A similar approach is needed for bear and elk, as implied by language on page 8 of the proposal, although criteria for setting priority are not discussed. We know that humans will be in the area and likely to be expanding their control of the landscape. If the area is also to have large mammals, what is truly "critical" to their persistence must be identified and limited resources directed to purchase, lease, and regulation of those areas.

Part of the proposal is a new position to develop and implement methods and strategies for limiting human-bear conflicts. Such a position seems like a logical step to help prevent bear-human conflicts. The FTE required depends on the magnitude of the problem.

Is there a database of agreements similar to those they propose here to show that in the majority of cases, the results have been successful? Stating that land technicians are needed to "work with landowners to assure compliance" seems to suggest only marginal confidence that an agreement will work as desired.

The proposal to model shoreline erosion should include the need to be addressed by development of a predictive model, the objectives of the modeling effort, and how the results will contribute to a solution. Presumably, the modeling proposal itself has been subjected to critical review.

Habitat actions are fundable after the funding agency has received convincing evidence that a rigorous monitoring program is in place with indicators that will provide a basis for program evaluation and for adaptive management needs.

Objective #8 is to "Develop an electronic-based subbasin plan for the Flathead Subbasin." The relation of this plan to existing plans is not described. The problem causing need for the proposal was not described. The proposal states, "Once the plan is completed, locally based watershed restoration projects will be initiated and recovery strategies formulated and implemented." This leaves an impression that ongoing projects do not have an equivalent basis.

Some specific questions:
Page 12, first paragraph: Please clarify what is meant by "adaptive management" here.
Page 12, Monitoring, Item 1. Why did if fail?
Page 12, Monitoring, Item 2. What does "baseline" mean here?
Page 12, Monitoring, Item 3. What are the trends?
Page 12, Monitoring, Item 4. What is a baseline trend, and what is the reason for doing it?
Page 12, Monitoring, Item 5. Why is it important to monitor these parameters?
Page 112, Implementation, Item 1. If they successfully emigrated, why was it necessary to create a "tributary?" What impact did the new tributary have on the marsh?
Page 12, Implementation, Item 3. Have these improvements resulted in benefits to fish?
Page 12, Implementation, Items 5-9. Have significant fishery benefits resulted from these projects?
Page 12, Research, Item 1. How will this knowledge be used?
Page 16, Fish Habitat. Does monitoring of past habitat work show significant fishery benefits?
Page 17, second paragraph. Have any of these monitoring programs identified gains as a result of watershed projects?

Comment:

Comment:

The proposal is directed, in part, by a statement of the USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator that"... without the maintenance of large blocks of undeveloped land along the west slope of the Missions, the probability of maintaining a grizzly bear population in the Mission Mountains is very low." The proposal needs to include definition of "large block," the number of such blocks needed, and what degree of connectivity among these blocks is needed to restore the desired viability of grizzly bears in the area. The proposal should go on to show that the size, number, and connectivity of blocks needed for the desired viability are available. If the needs can be identified, met, and maintained, a basis would be available for directing program actions.

Undoubtedly, humans are likely to be expanding their control of the landscape. If the area is also to have large mammals, what is truly "critical" to their persistence must be identified and limited resources directed to purchase, lease, and regulation of those areas. Gaining control of land-use practices is a logical strategy for protecting habitats. It also is logical that available resources be applied where they will most likely facilitate restoration of viability in the target populations. Before any resources are committed to these agreements, population segments that are key to the long-term viability and productivity of the regional population, or populations, need to be identified. Pursuit of agreements for "what is available" is not a systematic approach to the problem. There is a stated intent to formalize criteria as part of the project. This should be included as a work task, and used as a reference against which proposed acquisitions are evaluated.

Acquisitions proposed for elk are directed to increasing the amount of winter range. The proposal states that expansion of the herd without significant conflict with adjacent landowners can only occur with purchase of additional land. The proposal should include the basis for concluding that winter range is limiting the population.

The shoreline erosion proposal has not been adequately described or justified. At minimum, it should include the need to be addressed by development of a predictive model, the objectives of the modeling effort, and how the results will contribute to a solution. The modeling proposal itself needs critical review.

Apparently habitat condition has been monitored for at least several years as a basis for identifying and implementing locally based watershed restoration projects. Details of these assessments and how they are used to set priority should be described in the proposal.

Part of the proposal is a new position to develop and implement methods and strategies for limiting human-bear conflicts. Such a position seems like a logical step to help prevent bear-human conflicts, but is difficult to assess from a technical point-of-view. The FTE required depends on the magnitude of the problem. If each project is tracked after completion, however, why not create documentation of these post-project effects for future planning and evaluation?

There is a policy issue on how this relates to Montana's wildlife program under the Fish and Wildlife Program, some of this is like traditional wildlife property acquisition, but this issue appears to be explained in the CBFWA comment below.

CBFWA Comments: There is an agreement between BPA and MDFWP regarding wildlife credits for the state of Montana. The CSKT is not a signatory to that agreement and believe that most of the credits to date have occurred in areas that are not accessible to tribal members. An adequate M&E plan is presented in the proposal, but a direct link to objectives is not clear.

Comment:

- Do not fund objectives #1, #2, and #3. These objectives are for wildlife mitigation that should be funded out of the Montana wildlife mitigation agreement with the State of Montana for Libby and Hungry Horse dams.

- Objective 4 should be funded. It is a continuation of ongoing project 9608701 Focus Watershed Coordination - Flathead River Watershed

- Objective 5 should be funded. It is a continuation of ongoing project 9101901 Flathead Lake Monitoring and Habitat Enhancement.

- Do not fund Objective 6, Comprehensive I&E program. This appears to be primarily connected to Objectives #1, #2 and #3, which we are recommending not be funded.

- Do not fund Objective #7. We agree with the ISRP comments on inadequacy of the shoreline erosion portion of the proposal.

- Do not fund Objective #8. Subbasin planning will be funded through the Council subbasin planning process.

Comment:

A threshold issue is the applicability of the Montana Wildlife agreement. The Confederated Salish-Kootenai tribes takes the position that the tribes were not parties to the agreement and do not have access to the lands acquired under the agreement, and thus, should not be bound by the agreement reached between Bonneville and the State of Montana.

Second, the ISRP (p. 29) recommended no funding for the Salish-Kootenai habitat restoration projects now consolidated under proposal 24018. This is a broad program proposed for $5 million in FY 2002 and nearly $14 million over three years. The ISRP's primary concern was that it did not believe that it had sufficient information regarding how parcels would be selected for acquisition as this large-scale umbrella project is implemented.

Council recommendation:The threshold issue of whether or not the Montana Wildlife Agreement applies to the proposal has been resolved by Bonneville and the tribe. Bonneville has stated that it is agreeable to funding this proposal. However, there still remains the issue of how much of the proposal should be immediately funded. The proposal seeks to address impacts caused by both construction/inundation, as well as impacts from hydro operations. The issues is that the Council's program has stated that operational impacts should be dealt with as a part of subbasin planning, and Bonneville has expressed a desire to follow the Program on that point. Bonneville and the tribe have discussed the use of phasing the project in, using benchmarks to limit the pace of mitigation that is sought until operational and inundation impacts are defined and quantified so that mitigation can be assigned accordingly. The Council supports this approach.

The negative ISRP comments focused on the land acquisition components of the project very similar to those expressed in the review of the Albeni Falls mitigation program in the Pend Oreille subbasin. The Council intends to work to resolve the issue of how individual parcels acquired under umbrella mitigation plans like the one proposed here are selected and evaluated. The Council, CBFWA, and Bonneville will need to develop a uniform process and standards and criteria for review of these parcels. The Council will ensure that the process is consistent with guidance that already exists in the adopted fish and wildlife program provisions.

To assist with a resolution of how parcels are selected and evaluated, the Salish-Kootenai tribe provided additional information to the Council on how it applies criteria and standards to evaluate land acquisitions that were not provided to the ISRP for legitimate confidentiality concerns. Those materials were provided to the ISRP for its review. The ISRP found the criteria that will guide the Salish-Kootenai project implementation satisfactory, and suggested that they may provide a model for similar umbrella projects. Thus, the Council believes that this ISRP concern is resolved adequately to permit funding the project.

Finally, the ISRP's comments included concerns about the continuing watershed restoration and watershed coordinator functions. As will be developed in the discussion of the Kootenai watershed coordinator, the funding is recommended for continued funding of the base program Section 4, 5, 6 and 7 (objectives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) pending subbasin planning. The Council recommends that the budget not include funding for objective 8, development of an electronic subbasin plan. Bonneville funding for subbasin planning should be developed separately as part of the Council's subbasin planning process. In addition budgets for FY 2003 and 2004 need to be refined in the development of the FY 2002 Budget and SOW.

After having considered and discussed the above, the Council recommended at its September 26-27, 2001 meeting in Spokane to recommend that project 24018 be funded (with the exceptions noted above related to the watershed coordinator tasks) to include Objective 1 as defined in the project proposal, and be included as part of the Mountain Columbia work plan. The Council understands that this recommendation places project 24018 on "equal footing" with all of its previous Mountain Columbia project recommendations. The Council understands that the tribe will work with the other managers at CBFWA to seek to identify savings or deferrals for Fiscal Year 2002 within the project in accord with the letter from CBFWA Chairman Rod Sando dated September 26, 2001 in order to make additional funds available for remaining provinces.

[Note: Section 4, objective 1 (task a and b) at $149,036, Section 5, objective 1 (task c) at $3,841,692 and Section 7, objective 1 (task d) at $20,933 for a total of $4,011,661. The objective-based budget for objective 1 was averaged, from the FY 2002 proposal, to establish fiscal year 2003 and 2004 costs.] [Note: Objective-based budgets for objectives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were averaged, from the FY 2002 proposal, to establish fiscal year 2003 and 2004 costs.]

Comment:

Spreadsheet comment: BPA intends to partially fund the project. Fund the watershed coordination and fish habitat improvement component of this project that is a continuation of the ongoing Montana Focus Watershed Coordination (Flathead watershed) project number 199608702. Funding the wildlife and fisheries acquisition part of this project is still under discussion with the project sponsor.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website