FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200207200

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:

It looks as if the watershed assessment is planned for a period of 2 or 3 years, but it would be better to get it done in 2002. If agency personnel are not available to complete the watershed assessment in one year, it perhaps should be contracted out.

Parts of the proposal are difficult to read and interpret. Some problems are overly vague statements; an almost useless map (Fig. 1) that has no scale, no labels, no legend, no indication of compass direction—and no indication even of where the main channel is or where its mouth is; and undefined acronyms and abbreviations (e.g., RPA, BOR, ESU, TMDL, ICBEMP, ERU, ARPA, NAGPRA). Most readers will be unfamiliar with some of these terms. All abbreviations should be defined at first use in the text—as has been done for many others.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages ("tiers") are provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project 199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and other entities' monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Comment:

Comment:

M&E is proposed for 2005 and 2006. The reviewers recommend, however, that monitoring start before construction, so as to compare pre- and post-project conditions (sponsor did not respond on this issue) and be coordinated with Project 28045 as sponsor's response indicates will be done.

The reviewers recommend that the sponsor key the watershed analysis closely to habitat needs of critical life stages of the fishes involved. (In this regard, the reviewers alert the sponsor that an ISRP programmatic statement concerning watershed assessment—including EAWS—may soon be issued to help the process.) There is something different (and apparently more costly) about the approach in the Red River subbasin compared to others, e.g., Hood River.

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
While the Red River has been identified as an important subbasin in the South Fork Clearwater for anadromous fish, the Nez Perce Forest did similar work in the 1980s and Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the local Soil and Conservation District have spent at least $100K per mile trying to restore the Red River Meadow. It is not clear what this project's link to past and ongoing efforts are.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154, 400

Comment:

The primary issue comes from Bonneville's comments. Bonneville's comments note that the two Nez Perce projects should be evaluated relative to the draft proposed interim policy for funding habitat activities on federally owned land. As noted in the programmatic issues, the Council does not believe that the draft interim policy, as currently written, should be determinative of the Council recommendation in this funding cycle. However, the Council understands the major themes of the draft interim policy to focus on federal cost-share and the relationship to other Bonneville investments, and these two projects address those elements.

For project 28047 (Red River) the sponsor reports a proposed FY 02 cost-share of $365,000 to match with its FY 02 request for $95,000 of Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate cost-share of 79% for this project in FY 02. The sponsors have provided detailed information of past Bonneville investments in this project area extensive, showing that those investments have spanned several years, varied strategies (including habitat restoration and protection, research, and artificial production initiatives), and total in the millions of dollars.

For project 28048 (Crooked Fork Creek to Colt Killed Area) the sponsor reports a proposed FY 02 cost-share of $95,000 to match with its FY 02 request for $174,482 of Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate cost-share of 35% in FY 02. The sponsors have provided detailed information of past Bonneville investments in this project area extensive, showing that those investments have spanned several years, varied strategies (including both habitat restoration and protection and artificial production initiatives), and total in the millions of dollars.

For project 28059 (Lapwai Creek Watershed) the sponsor reports a proposed FY 02 cost-share of $165,000 to match with its FY 02 request for $ 372,060 of Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate cost-share of 31%. It should also be noted that Lapwai Creek is one of the rearing and acclimation sites for NPTH.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website