FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199303501

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

n/a

Reason for change in scope

n/a

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Habitat projects under the Fish and Wildlife Program must be based on watershed assessment. The proposal refers to certain assessments to support need for the project, e.g., "a landscape scale assessment (USDA Forest Service, 1998)." However, the project has gone on for some 8 years without the requisite watershed assessment, which is not planned for completion until 2003 ("An Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, p. 10). The EAWS should be done sooner, and the project should be funded only for the EAWS until that component is finished.

The project is vastly overdone and expensive, and lacks appropriate focus on biological aspects. Obviously, a great deal of thought and effort regarding physical aspects have gone into the physical and "communication" aspects thus far, and into the 2002 proposal and supplementary materials. The critical assumptions listed on p. 27 are particularly good (and they could be expanded to deal more directly with ecological processes), however, it is evident in the project's objectives, tasks, and methods that most of the critical assumptions will not be inadequately investigated.

The project's research is developing information that is interesting in its own right and may represent a contribution to the field of stream morphology, but its applicability to fish and wildlife restoration is unclear. The physical aspects, though necessary in principle, are overdone. The potential of such elaborate measurements for solving Columbia/Snake River fishery and wildlife problems is not evident; physical study should be scaled down. The project's communication/education component is also out of proportion to the need; major public education seems unwarranted because the study area is remote and the meadow reach under study does not represent the steeper types of stream that prevail in the drainage basin. Reporting of results via normal agency and professional-journal channels would fill the communications need.

The project is particularly lacking in biological concept, planning, direction, participation, and analysis. These shortcomings are especially notable in view of the project title's key words: "Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat," which imply biological emphasis. The project goal is described as restoring "natural physical and biological processes," but, except for revegetation, the processes discussed in the proposal are almost solely physical. Also, little in the way of biological process (e.g., survival, growth, reproduction, behavior) exists in the M&E plan. The project needs guidance from ecologists.

Meaning of the elaborate physical measurements to fish and wildlife habitat is mentioned only very generally in the proposal and is hardly referenced; the only primary (non-gray) source on fish or wildlife habitat is Bjornn & Reiser (1991), and it is referenced only with respect to gravel size for spawning chinook salmon. In other words, the project's connections with ecology of fish and other animals are not truly described. No primary source on ecology is referenced in the proposal's section on technical and scientific background (and indeed even none on physical processes in streams). What kinds of habitat are to be restored? How much of each type is expected to result? How do fish and wildlife of various kinds use the types of habitat that will be created? What quantitative gain in fish and wildlife production can be expected to result, and via what processes?

Before work is extended to private land up- or downstream from the present project area, the project cost per unit of stream length should be greatly reduced. Restoring the stream to its pre-channelization course (a natural condition to which wild fish are adapted) is undoubtedly beneficial, but the cost of doing it should be nowhere near that of the present project. The $3,065,909 cost to date for the 2.55-mile post-restoration channel is $1.2 million per mile (it would be $3.19 million per mile for the 0.96 mile of channel gained, but benefit derives also to the rest of the study area). By any measure, the per-mile cost has been exorbitant, especially for this small stream.

How representative of important problems in the drainage basin is the project area? The proposal does not establish this.

The project devised a large, intricate, portable weir system "to facilitate transfer of river flow from existing channel alignment into the newly constructed alignment" (p. 39). The proposal states that the "portable weirs are extremely effective at allowing flow transfer to take place with minimal turbidity discharge," and that they "also improve construction efficiency by allowing work such as backfilling and bank shaping to continue behind the weirs without risk of erosion or deposition." However, no data are provided to support the implication that the weirs reduce downstream sedimentation to an extent that is biologically significant. Reviewers viewed photos of the weirs during the site visit, noted that the devices seem a major expense, and question whether building and operating these devices is cost effective from the standpoint of the fishery resource.

The M&E design appears to depend mainly on detecting trends and does not seem to include adequate experimental control in terms of sampling in similar but untreated reaches of stream. Some of the monitoring for trends has been started after the treatments were done, thus missing pre-treatment data. The section on macroinvertebrate monitoring (p. 36) indicates that one "control reach is included to evaluate natural variability." It is questionable whether one is enough. That section also indicates that macroinvertebrate sampling of riffles will be done in 2001 for the first time; that does not seem timely. No control reaches are mentioned in connection with measurement of fish population response. The proposed measurement of fish habitat response (p. 35) is inadequate. For example, important variables such as features that provide hiding cover are missing from the plan (applicant should consult modern salmonid habitat studies), controls are not included, and the schedule of monitoring for trend seems to have been delayed until after treatment began. Many of these shortcomings apply also to M&E for wildlife. Furthermore, the only wildlife populations being monitored are birds.

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:

The project's communications component should be discontinued as non-essential. The ISRP also recommends against more construction at this point and against any other new work (except improved biological monitoring) in this funding cycle. Instead, future submission for such might be appropriate after the EAWS is completed and M&E (including scrutiny of fish response) has proceeded. The project is fundable in part for the EAWS, for activities that Council staff would identify in the O&M budget as necessary to "preserve investment in project", for implementation and effectiveness monitoring for phases I-IV, and for finishing evaluation of the four treatments and producing peer-reviewed reports/papers.

Most of the project's research is unwarranted. The reviewers recommend that it be reduced to basic M&E, and that M&E deficiencies in biological monitoring be corrected. The project is particularly lacking in biological concept, planning, direction, and analysis. These shortcomings are notable in view of the project title's words: "Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat." The project goal is described as restoring "natural physical and biological processes," but, except for revegetation, the processes discussed in the proposal are almost solely physical. Biological processes would involve survival, growth, reproduction, and behavior, which are not addressed in the project. The project needs guidance from ecologists. It remains a concern of reviewers that the M&E design depends almost solely on detecting trends rather than having adequate experimental controls. Some of the monitoring for trends began only after the treatments were done, thus missing pre-treatment data.

Reviewers recognize value of the program in furthering interactions among groups and agencies, including private landowners, and in evaluating some restoration techniques. However, because the project includes only minimal attention to the biotic community, especially fish, we are concerned that project performance does not provide a satisfactory template for expansion here or for work elsewhere.

The ISRP reviewers note concurrence by CBFWA comments that "The results of the EAWS . . . should guide any future instream work for this project. Until that assessment is completed, restoration of the lower channel should be considered a 'Recommended Action' [low ranking]."

Comment:

Comments
Identified in the Forest Service subbasin assessment as a very important watershed, but this subbasin is severely degraded and in need of restoration. Thus, we don't believe that this meets RPA 150 which calls for the protection of currently productive private land. It is possible that the riparian easements could be consistent with Action 153, but the design, duration, and certainty of securing the easements is not addressed within the proposal.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
150

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website