FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200206700

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

The USBWP program is being reconfigured on a geographic basis in order to address past ISRP comments and new federal agency plans. In FY 02 the USBWP will be restructured consistent with a geographic approach for project selection, planning, implementation, and monitoring. The following ongoing projects will be restructured into this approach: Idaho Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Habitat Projects, No. 199401700 Salmon River Anadromous Fish Passage Enhancement, No. 199306200 Upper Salmon River Diversion Consolidation Project, No. 199600700

Reason for change in scope

Program is being restructured to make adaptive management more explicit and for consistency with past ISRP comments and new federal agency plans.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

In terms of working with EDT, the sponsors should consider conferring with Bruce Watson of the Yakama Nation fish and wildlife department.

The presentation was broken into a series of sub-presentations based on geography. Most listed the usual list of limiting factors, but did not provide much insight into proposed future actions. The list of opportunities for actions was fairly comprehensive, but did not provide a sense of prioritized actions. Many different agencies are doing many different kinds of monitoring. There seems to be opportunity for improvement and coordination.

The Lemhi has laudatory involvement from local stakeholders, as well as a functioning technical committee in place. There seems to be a disconnect between the "fix the flat-tire" approach and the prioritization effort described in the presentation. Although some problems are obvious, what is the strategy? Should they start at the bottom or top of watershed? Start fixing the portion with best spawning or rearing habitat?

The ISRP does not expect a research level monitoring and evaluation scientific study in this project. Tier I trend monitoring for effectiveness of the project, as described in the introduction to this report, should be sufficient. It may be sufficient to have a regular schedule for checking effectiveness of previous projects, monitoring of water temperatures and cover habitat, etc., e.g., a small systematic sample of projects might be monitored for effectiveness each year so that over a 5 year period, all are surveyed for basic measures.

It does not appear that any of the current monitoring is sufficient to make statistical inferences to these subbasins and watersheds.

The proponents should clarify if or when data from these projects will be available in StreamNet with metadata (methods).

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.

Comment:

Comment:

An analysis of the amount of water and bank protection that realistically can be restored should be made. Specialists, such as those presently being consulted, could use this information and attempt to predict what channel characteristics and dynamics might be expected from the expected water and bank restoration. Such an analysis can also show where actions are needed to facilitate development of more favorable fish habitat, and provide a basis for prioritizing projects. Responses to reviewer comments indicated that the proponents are working with channel specialists from the University of Idaho to complete the first steps described above. Successful demonstration that these initial steps have been completed and incorporated into the program should be prerequisite to continued funding.

The ISRP appreciates the commitment to develop a more unified monitoring and evaluation program. These attempts should be coordinated among other projects with aquatic and terrestrial monitoring responsibilities. See the ISRP reviews and proponent's responses to ISRP initial concerns on project proposal #28018. 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.

The Lemhi has laudatory involvement from local stakeholders, as well as a functioning technical committee in place.

In the review of project 28019, the ISRP recommends that projects dealing with animal feeding operations in the Upper Salmon basin be considered for funding as part of Project #199202603 and related proposals submitted by the Custer and Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Those projects either have or are developing criteria for effective prioritization of projects for benefit of fish in the subbasin. The ISRP recommends that the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project give priority to identifying key feeding operations and to coordinating remediation with their owners and with the ISDA and IOSC and other funding sources.

Comment:

Comments
Putting in individual proposals for each of the geographic areas in which the model watershed group is a good approach, but there are few details in the proposals as to where and how much land will be affected by these activities, which leads one to question the budget estimates. This subbasin is identified as a priority subbasin in the FCRPS BiOp.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
149, 150

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
149, 150, 154

Comment:

The five "sub-projects" within this package received a "not fundable" recommendation. This collection of proposals contemplated a significant expansion of scope, intensity, and type of activities beyond what had been ongoing in past years. The proposed program would have expanded to over $12 million dollars for Fiscal Year 2002 alone. The ISRP's comments clearly show that it was not comfortable with the significant expansion contemplated for the Upper Salmon River subbasin SWCD program. The ISRP comments reveal that such a substantial expansion could not be scientifically justified without further assessment and planning.

Council staff met with the sponsors, Bonneville staff, and other interests associated with the proposals to evaluate the ISRP comments as well as the Council's general funding considerations. During those discussions the group noted that the ISRP's preliminary report was actually quite supportive of the scope, intensity level, and type of work that had been conducted in the Upper Salmon in past years. The ISRP's preliminary report stated:

The fencing projects, screening projects, and some additional actions in the watershed appear warranted and will likely benefit fish. The past actions on fencing the creeks and letting the streams restore themselves without planting or channel modification are justified for those sites. However, the set of proposals goes beyond "flat-tire" fixes. Consequently, the program needs a well-defined watershed assessment and project prioritization effort with a protocol for sampling projects for effectiveness monitoring.

The sponsors suggested that its Upper Salmon habitat program be scaled back to its previous scope, and to focus on the passive habitat restoration activities that the ISRP determined to be warranted and a benefit to fish. The Council staff agreed that this would be advisable in light of the ISRP recommendations, and staff supports the projects that have been reconfigured in that light. This work continues to be an extremely high priority for the state, managers, and interested parties in the subbasin, and within the province as a whole.

Bonneville comments provided an "A" rating for the administrative project and for each of the five sub-proposals. Bonneville's "A" ranking for the five sub-proposals was conditioned on limiting the scope and nature of the activities to essentially those supported by the ISRP's Preliminary Report recommendations, including riparian easements, riparian exclusion fencing, irrigation diversion consolidation or elimination, and fish passage barrier removal.

In previous funding cycles the Custer and Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation Districts implemented their habitat restoration projects under the following four projects (Administrative #199202603, Habitat #199401700, Passage #199306200, Upper Salmon #199600700). In response to Bonneville staff suggestions, as part of the Mountain Snake project proposal solicitation, the sponsor realigned these projects into one ongoing project (Administrative 199202603) and divided the implementation related work into five separate proposals with new project numbers (Lemhi 28037, Middle Salmon - Panther 28039, Pahsimeroi 28036, East Fork 28038, Upper Salmon 28040). One of the main reasons for this reconfiguration was to better accommodate the proposed substantial expansion in the scope, intensity, and nature of the work. After discussions with the sponsor and scaling back the scope of work in light of ISRP and Bonneville comments, it was agreed that the ongoing work would be better managed with two contracts.

The Council recommends that this work be accomplished through two contracts. The first is ongoing administrative contract #199202603. It should be used to administer funds for the Watershed office. The previously existing habitat project contract #199401700 should be used to administer funds between the Custer and Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation Districts for the on-the-ground project implementation elements that are described in projects # 28036, #28037, #28038, #28039, , and #28040. That contract funding level for 199401700 is the total of the funding recommendations for each of the sub-projects as presented in Table 1. The apportionment of the funds to the various watershed areas can also be determined from the Table 1. funding summary.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: