FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199607703

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 reason for the change in estimated budget is the addition of 3 barrier culvert replacements for all aquatic species passage. The additional expense for this has been offset by reducing the number of road to obliterate from approximately 45 miles/year to 35 miles/year.

Reason for change in scope

The reason for the change in scope is the identification of fish barrier culverts within the analysis area. A thorough culvert survey and analysis was not completed in the watershed analysis. Site surveys of all the culverts were completed in FY2000. This survey identified 10 culverts that are blocking passage to 35% of all habitat within the analysis area. It is for this reason culvert replacement has been added to this project proposal.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

According to the oral presentation, creation of instream habitat for salmonids, namely pools, will be done in addition to road obliteration and culvert modification, although this habitat work is not mentioned in the proposal's section on objectives, tasks and methods. As described in the presentation, more biological understanding seems to be needed in planning and designing the habitat restorations, and this work should be better described. It was stated that rock structures would be used to create pools. Log (LWD) structure did not seem to have been considered, and no awareness was demonstrated that log/LWD structures generally provide much better pool habitat for salmonids than rock-formed pools do. None of the proposal's references is a primary literature source on structural habitat for salmonids; the proposal should incorporate comprehensive information from such sources.

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:

Response to comment #3 and communications on the field tour indicate project personnel may have an unjustified degree of concern that logs across streams block passage of anadromous salmonid adults. Some of this concern might be alleviated by learning the actual leaping and squirming abilities of these fish from first-hand observation and primary literature sources (not relying on agency "manuals" and such, which often contain out-dated and illusory material). Surveying old artificial habitat devices is great for learning what not to do in the future, but staff ought not be needlessly nervous about presence of failed structures and should save money when possible by not bothering to demolish them. None of the proposal's references was a primary literature source on structural habitat for salmonids; future proposals should contain relevant discussion of comprehensive information from such sources.

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
Will address passage problems, but this is not in a priority subbasin as identified by the BiOp and All Hs paper. This project has been ongoing since 1996, though and most of the culverts should have been fixed by now. The budget has escalated to $500K per annum without clear reason.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
500

Comment:

For the reasons discussed in the programmatic policy issue regarding draft Bonneville policy, the Council will not accept and use Bonneville's draft policy in a dispositive manner, as written, in making its recommendations on these projects. However, the Council does believe that it is enlightening to do a project-by-project review of the projects on two points: (1) cost-sharing; and (2) connections or relatedness of the habitat work to other Bonneville investments. The Council believes that this would be informative because notwithstanding the rather cumbersome and complex multiple sets of criteria in the proposed Bonneville policy, the issues of cost-share and relationship to other Bonneville investments seem to be the key points. The Council believes that evaluating these projects relative to those two main points is responsive to Bonneville's comments and, depending on the results, should be sufficient to allow these projects to proceed as the Council, Bonneville, and public further discuss the draft interim policy.

1. 199607702 - Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed: The project is on 50% private and 50% federal land. The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $370,000 matched with an FY 02 request of $221,013 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 62%.

The sponsor has presented detailed information that shows significant past Bonneville investment in the project area, including habitat work, research, and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery components. The watershed has also received out-plantings from the Lower Snake River Compensation Program (BPA funded). The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.

2. 199607703 - Protect and Restore Waw'aatamnima Creek to 'Imnaamatoon Creek Watersheds Analysis Area: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $365,000 matched with an FY02 request of $413,000 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 47%.

The sponsor has provided detailed information that demonstrates that Bonneville has invested over $15 million in the project area for actions that include habitat restoration, passage work, research, and artificial production that this proposed work builds upon. The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.

3. 199607705 - Restore McComas Meadows: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $722,000 matched with an FY02 request of $332,000 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 70%.

4. The sponsor has provided detailed information showing that the proposed work builds upon substantial past Bonneville investments including habitat restoration, research, and artificial production actions. The stream is used for varied supplementation initiatives of the Nez Perce tribe, such as out-planting Lower Snake River Compensation Program fish (BPA-funded). The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.

5. 200003400 - Protect and Restore North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $219,000 matched with an FY02 request of $182,507 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 55%.

The sponsor has provided detailed information showing how the proposed work builds upon substantial past Bonneville investments in the project area for habitat work, passage, and research. The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.

6. 200003500 - Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed (S.F. Clearwater R.): The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $ 136,000 matched with an FY02 request of $287,732 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 32%.

The sponsor has provided detailed information showing how the proposed work builds on past Bonneville investments in the project area for habitat restoration, research, and out-planting for Bonneville funded Lower Snake River Compensation Program (BPA funded) fish. The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.

7. 200003600 - Protect and Restore Mill Creek: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $ 45,000 matched with an FY02 request of $ 74,915 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 38 %.

The sponsor has provided detailed information showing how the propose work relates to and builds upon past Bonneville investments. Bonneville has funded habitat restoration and monitoring work, and the watershed is involved in Nez Perce Tribe and Lower Snake River Compensation Program production initiatives (both BPA funded). The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.

Four of the projects budgets are held to the general rule of a 3.4% increase to the Council's Fiscal Year 2001 recommended budgets. Project 199607705 is recommended to receive a substantial increase. The watershed scale assessment has been completed for this project, and the additional funding is recommended to move to the next logical and planned step, which is to implement the restoration strategies in light of the assessment. Project 200003500 has a substantial budget decrease from the Fiscal Year 2001 approved amount, and the Council recommends that lower amount. See Table 1 for all of the budget impact specifics. The Council recommends that the sponsor and Bonneville document, as a condition of contracting, how the sponsors will monitor and report on the effectiveness of these activities.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website