FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200207400

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:

Formal watershed analysis apparently is not finished (USFS started it for Crooked Fork to Brushy Fork drainages; from presentation it sounded about 1/3 complete), and EAWS is proposed within the project, but a wealth of previous analyses of habitat problems (including road and culvert alteration needs) serves as a sound basis for the proposal. Thus, although results from the EAWS should be the basis for the proposal, approving the project as proposed appears to be much more justified than in some other projects where watershed analysis has not yet been done.

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.

The review group also 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:

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, 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 project will undertake a watershed analysis, but this subbasin is not identified as a priority subbasin in the BiOp. Also, the project will continue restoration projects in the area prior to the completion of the watershed assessment. This project has some merit, but much of the habitat degradation is from past Forest Management and road construction. Much of the watershed inventory has already been done by the USFS. It seems that there is a redundancy in funding one entity to shadow another entity who has the more direct responsibility.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

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