FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200206100

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 contains much helpful background on the fish populations. Assessments of instream habitat have also been done, but the results are not described. The proposal's deficiencies seem to indicate inadequate understanding of some basic aspects. A few details: Table 2 displays channel stability, flow alteration, and habitat alteration in a column headed "Pollutants" (which they are not), several literature sources referenced in text are not in the reference list, the meaning of "(p IV-C-3)" on page 8 is unexplained, and about half of Figure 7 is blacked out. More importantly, the discussion of "Limiting Factors to Fish and Wildlife Species" is vague and confusing, especially in that (1) for many of the factors mentioned, it is not said how they affect fish and wildlife, and (2) sometimes human activities that indirectly affect fish and wildlife are misconstrued as limiting factors; it is the specific conditions caused by those activities that should identified as the limiting factors (and the human activities should be identified as causes of those limiting factors). On page 19, "large stream size of the Clearwater River mainstem" is shown as one of the four "principle [sic] factors" constraining steelhead. It is not at all clear how large stream size would constrain the population.

Task 2.2 (p. 28), on modifying channelized stream implies a need for restoring "miles" of habitat lost through channelization along railways, logging deck, and roads. It says sites are being reviewed to "identify a channelized stream segment that can be modified in a relatively low-cost fashion to return the stream to original channel." This could undoubtedly help restore habitat, but why just one piece of stream when apparently so many parts of the stream are needy in this respect?

If an initial survey was done in 1995, then the proposal should contain data and discussion of impact of the 1996 flood. Streamflow gaging stations should be established throughout the system.

The review group suggests 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.

Comment:

Comment:

Much work remains to be done on watershed assessment, the project's initial step. Thus, the basis for action is still far from clear. The project should be restricted to Objective 1, which covers watershed assessment. Objective 2, implementing "best management practices" (BMPs), cannot logically be undertaken until, in a proposal for the next funding cycle, the BMPs are described on the basis of the completed watershed analysis.

The procedure outlined for watershed assessment in sponsor's response needs to be better directed and organized. A major shortcoming is that the ties to fish are weak. The watershed assessment should identify needs for ecosystem protection and restoration to benefit specified, critical salmonid life stages within specified geographic portions of the watershed. Also, the watershed assessment and resultant planning need to be tied in with development of a master plan for lower Clearwater steelhead and salmon spawning and rearing.

The ISRP endorses the sponsor's proposal to initiate discussions with the Latah NRCS Field Office NRI specialist. The intent of the ISRP recommendation is not necessarily to use the existing database at the Potlatch River watershed or Clearwater River subbasin scales, though this may be possible for variables currently measured by NRI. Rather, the reviewers are suggesting that data collected as part of project 28025 (at the local level for local inferences) might be collected at sites selected as an intensification of current NRI sites, using common data measurement protocols so results could be more easily combined and compared at larger scales, e.g., to compare the Crooked River and Potlatch Subbasins, or the Clearwater and Salmon subbasins. Also, see the review remarks on Project 28043.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are 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.

Comment:

Comments
This is a priority watershed for steelhead in the Clearwater subbasin, but the budget appears to be excessive compared to on the ground benefit. Also, this project will not likely have measurable benefits for listed species in the foreseeable future. The information collected in the watershed plan will contribute to the TMDL to be done in 2003.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
152, 154

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website