FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199901700

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 change in estimated budget follows the change in scope explained below. The estimated budget increased due to the addition of culvert replacememts and the replacement of a fish barrier bridge that was identified recently and has landowner and cost-sharing opportunities. In addition, a greater amount of work will be put into the development and implementation of Conservation Land Management Plans.

Reason for change in scope

All aspects of this proposal have been coordinated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Nez Perce Soil Water Conservation District, Idaho Fish and Game, Washington State Universities Department of Environmental Education and the Nez Perce Tribal Water Resources and Land Services Department, using the Clearwater Subbasin Summary (Draft) and two watershed assessments as guiding documents. In using this approach, the scope of this project for FY2002-2006 was modified and formulated in a way that will do the greatest good for protection and restoration of fish habitat for the recovery of listed summer steelhead and fall chinook salmon and provides the greatest collaborative and cost-sharing opportunities.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

When fencing, vegetative planting, and culvert installation projects meet the Public 566 eligibility criteria and are accepted by NRCS for funding, up to 65% of the on-the-ground implementation costs on private and tribal lands will be paid for from PL566 obligations. As outlined in this proposal, up to 2 miles of fencing, 5 acres of vegetative plantings, and 12 culverts may be cost-shared through the PL566 program. This BPA proposal will provide an additional 35% for the above mentioned projects.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Continuation funding of about $600K/year is requested to do the following on-the-ground activities: participate in replacing a bridge, replace 3 culverts, obliterate approximately 10 mi. of road/year, and build 2 mi. of fence. Replacing the bridge will be of undoubted benefit to fish; for the other activities, please describe how they were selected via the watershed assessment process and how they will significantly improve fish production in Lapwai Creek.

Also, the reviewers are interested in why these latter activities were identical to those proposed for Big Canyon Creek, yet the two watersheds appear significantly different.

Please describe in detail the M&E design and methods for assessing fish population responses (p. 30, Objective 8, Tasks B and C). Describe the system of treatment and control streams and/or reaches to be used. Exactly how will the electrofishing and snorkel-counting be done? How will the density estimates of juvenile chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and associated fish species be calculated (name an appropriate standard method for each different situation, and reference a literature source on it)? How will it be determined that the samples of fish lengths, weights, and scales from juvenile fish are "representative"? Describe how the spawning surveys for steelhead will be conducted.

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:

Reviewers felt that funding this project should be highest priority of all the lower Clearwater fish habitat proposals. An aquatic assessment and other NPT stream survey reports have been completed and reviewed by the ISRP. The panel feels that although this analysis falls short of the watershed assessment template typically expected, under the circumstances for Lapwai Creek there is adequate, if not ideal, rehabilitation guidance. CBFWA reviewers also felt there was adequate watershed assessment for proposed activities to continue.

Reviewers concur with project sponsors that the Lapwai Creek system has a great potential for increasing anadromous smolt production if habitat is restored. Many opportunities for that effort currently exist, including for stream segments where fish access is blocked and for those riparian resources adjacent to the former Camas Prairie Railroad. Good working cooperation among project proponents was evident.

Monitoring issues remain. Further, the reviewers note that transects only 50 m long are probably too short for obtaining meaningful fish population results. 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
This project intends to address some water issues but is not an FCRPS priority subbasin so is not identified in Action 149. This project is guided by a draft watershed assessment to be finalized later this year, but does not appear to address the primary limiting factors of lack of flow and headwater diversions. Thus, this project may be of limited benefit. The project also includes 2miles of fence along wetland areas but that accounts for about 5% of the total funds requested for FY2002 and is not apparently linked to agricultural easement programs.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
500

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website