FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200301900

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
28018 Narrative	Narrative
28018 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
28018 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Lower Salmon River Tributary Protection and Enhancement
Proposal ID	200301900
Organization	Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Tim Cochnauer
Mailing address	1540 Warner Lewiston, Idaho 83501
Phone / email	2087995010 / tcochnau@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project	Cal Groen
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Protect and enhance important aquatic and terrestrial habitats in Salmon River tributaries.
Target species	Many native fish and wildlife species, including but not limited to steelhead trout, bull trout, chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat, redband trout, bighorn sheep, and mountain quail.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Upper end of project area (confluence of Salmon R. with French Creek)
		Lower end of project area (confluence of Salmon R. with Snake R.)
45.856	-116.7926	Salmon River
45.4251	-116.03	French Creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hydro RPA Action 141
Habitat RPA Action 149
Habitat RPA Action 150
Habitat RPA Action 153

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 154	NMFS	BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	New project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
92205700	Craig Mountain Wildlife Mitigation Project	Implementation of proposed project will complement on-going wildlife mitigation/restoration activities on Craig Mountain.
9107300	Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluations	Ongoing project to monitor trends in spring/summer chinook salmon and steelhead trout populations in the Salmon, Clearwater and lower Snake river drainages. Has quantified the benefits in parr carrying capacity observed from habitat enhancement projects.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
Develop a comprehensive restoration plan for Lower Salmon River tributaries.	a. Assess habitat conditions and constraints to fish and wildlife populations	2	$30,000
	b. Identify and design habitat protection and enhancement measures, in coordination with interagency team. Prioritize tributaries and actions.	2	$32,000
	c.Develop monitoring and evlauation plan that will provide a measure of the incremental improvement in habitat values and subsequently fish and wildlife populations that each action provides.	2	$30,000
	d. Identify, seek, and coordinate funding sources for implementation of identified priority projects.	5	$9,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Develop a restoration plan for Lower Salmon River tributaries, including an assessment of existing conditions, identified and prioritized protection/enhancement measures, annual monitoring and evaluation, and annual coordination of funding sources.	3	6	$454,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$106,000	$111,000	$116,000	$121,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
2. Implement actions which protect and enhance tributary habitats in the Lower Salmon River.	a. Prioritize annual implement plan with interagency team, including NRCS, SCC, USFS, BLM, Nez Perce Tribe, and other interested entities.	4	$0
	b. Work with landowners and implement actions identified in annual implementation plan.	4	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
2. Implement actions which protect and enhance tributary habitats in the Lower Salmon River.	3	6	$1,800,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$300,000	$400,000	$500,000	$600,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
3. Conduct annual operation and maintenance activities on project lands.	a. Control noxious weeds	3	$0
	b. Maintain fences.	3	$0
	c. Maintain other equipment/facilities/signs, habitat improvements associated with protection/enhancement activities.	3	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
3. Conduct annual operation and maintenance activities on project lands	4	6	$80,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$20,000	$25,000	$35,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
4. Monitor and evaluate the incremental improvement that each project will provide to overall habitat conditions in each tributary in the Lower Salmon River.	a. Coordinate with on-going DEQ/SCC water quality monitoring programs and protocols.	3	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
4. Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of protection and enhancement measures.	4	6	$60,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$10,000	$20,000	$30,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1	$35,000
Fringe		$15,000
Supplies		$25,000
Travel		$9,000
Indirect		$17,000
		$101,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$101,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$101,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Reason for change in scope

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Idaho Department of Fish and Game	Supervision, clerical support, planning	$15,000	in-kind
Natural Resource Conservation Service	Planning	$10,000	in-kind
USBLM/USFS	Planning	$10,000	in-kind
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality	Planning	$10,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. The project would acquire land and conservation easements in lower Salmon River tributaries (from French Creek near Riggins to Salmon-Snake confluence), an approach that has been endorsed by reviewers in other subbasins as an effective way to preserve and restore fish and wildlife resources. However, this proposal provides only general statements of what will be done. There is no material to review for technical merit.

A response is requested that identifies the basics of the prioritization process that would be used to assess the merits of prospective purchases and easements. Reviewers feel that at this point, for aquatic habitats, the proposing agency would profit from the development of a watershed assessment procedure (EDT or similar) that identifies priority areas and strategies.

Additionally, a response is needed that shows evidence of active coordination of this proposal with the Nez Perce Tribe's proposal 28010. Both are in the same area and propose similar strategies, i.e. acquisitions including easements and outright purchases.

The review group 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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

This project addresses RPA 154. This proposal is linked to project 28010. Reviewers identified this proposed work to be a high priority if managers and stakeholders agree as to which easements should be purchased or are in agreement relative to the section of the plan that tentatively identifies properties that could be purchased. When funding this project, project 28010 funding levels should be considered. The development of the restoration plan should be a priority for this project. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable in part to develop and complete planning and prioritization effort. The work in the Lower Salmon should be treated as a geographic region with project selection and prioritization at that geographic scale. The proposal and the responses show this to be largely a planning effort with little included for technical review. Specific proposals need to be prepared for each project (easement, purchase, etc.). Sponsors are referred to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan - Project 19910600. Monitoring and Evaluation plans should be made consistent with a state/national sampling plan such as the National Resources Inventory. See the ISRP reviews and proponent's responses to ISRP initial concerns on project proposals 28018, 28010, 199202603, 28036, 28038, 28040, 28039, 28037. The proponents are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Will develop a restoration plan, which will identify and prioritize restoration and protection needs on private land.

Comments
This project will develop a restoration plan, but does not give much detail about its implementation. Presumably, that is why the budgets increase substantially in out years. It might be more useful to focus on individual streams. Most of the Lower Salmon tributaries have limited value for anadromous fish, but a few have potential and should be a high priority.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and the need for this project can be properly assessed.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council recommendation: These projects [28010, 28018] are linked and focus on habitat acquisition and protection for the benefit of both fish and wildlife species. The ISRP found each fundable in part, and emphasized the need to better detail regarding the criteria for prioritization of acquisitions. The ISRP encourages using the approach developed by the Salish-Kootenai tribe The Council received NMFS comments only on 28018, which stated that the project could respond to RPA 154, and noted that there are some habitats in the lower Salmon that have potential for anadromous fish, and encouraged a focus on those. Bonneville's comments suggest that neither be funded at this time, and that there may not be wildlife mitigation credits available.

The Council recommends combining these projects and funding them at a substantially lower level than proposed. The figures are presented in Table 1. The sponsors have stated a willingness to reduce their proposals to target a total of 2000 acres from the originally conceived 12,000 acres. The Council also recommends that the proposals focus on acquisition of lands that are currently productive, or provide linkages to currently productive habitat that also have recognizable benefits to anadromous fish as well as terrestrial species. This recommendation is conditioned on the sponsors providing clarity on criteria their acquisition prioritization during the contracting process. The Council recommends that those criteria, at least in part, focus on currently productive habitat and habitats that have some anadromous fish benefits.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
To be determine

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Defer funding until project can be reviewed for possible implementation of RPA 150.