FY 2000 proposal 199901900

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

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: NA

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposes to alter stream banks along 12 miles of the Salmon River near Challis, Idaho, with much of the cost to be borne by the Corps of Engineers. There is no documentation why this reach is critical or more critical than others. The proposal does not adequately convey that this is a priority area for these activities. This project is potentially an effective use of a relatively small amount of BPA money, but a more thorough plan should be developed. The proposal falls short of establishing sound scientific principles and demonstrating clear benefits to fish and wildlife. The proposal lacks detail particularly of proposed methods and cites several references in the text that are not subsequently included in the reference list. CBFWA also noted that the proposal is a "Good concept but the proposal lacks enough detail to adequately review the project. … Sections 3 and 4 are incomplete. … An adequate proposal should include implementation activities and an effective monitoring plan. Reviewers suggest that the authors make further efforts to interact with other model watershed projects in the Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, and East Fork Salmon. Together with the collaborators identified in Section 9 they could develop technically defensible approaches, procedures and a viable proposal.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sections 3 and 4 are incomplete. Section 5 (costs) are vague for FY2000.

Proposal should include implementation activities and an effective monitoring plan.

Sponsor should provide an annual progress report to BPA.

Comment:

On the ISRP Comment that the proposal falls short of establishing sound scientific principles and demonstrating clear benefits to fish and wildlife, sponsor responded: "All interim work to protect existing riparian habitat is being reviewed by NMFS, USFWS, NRCS, Peter Goodwin, IDFG, USFS, BLM, Army Corp, Water Resources, etc. In other words, adequate scientific review has been provided as this project has evolved." While this may be true, the proposal and the response failed to provide such information to the ISRP. The proposal and response also failed to set forth any scientific principle for the reviewers.

On the ISRP comment that the authors should make further efforts to interact with other model watershed projects in the Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, and East Fork Salmon, and together with collaborators identified in Section 9 could develop technically defensible approaches, procedures and a viable proposal, the sponsor responded: "The technically defensible plan talked about is being developed by the Corp of Engineers and Dr. Peter Goodwin's grad students [etcetera]." Therefore, the plan has not yet been fully developed. The plan should precede implementation.

Review of this proposal and the ISRP's recommendations on it have strong parallels to our review of Project 9705700, "Salmon River Production Program". Both projects suffer from attempting to implement broadly stated recovery and restoration goals without benefit of having a technically-defensible master plan in place. The ISRP is directed by Congress to evaluate proposals based on several criteria, including varying levels of scientific and fiscal accountability. The ISRP focuses primarily on the scientific and technical merits of proposed projects. It goes against the ISRP's Congressionally-mandated directives and good scientific common sense to recommend advancement of projects for funding that do not have a master plan (or its equivalent) in place that define critical elements of project planning, experimental design, and monitoring and evaluation.

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: Restore the river corridor to a healthy condition by reestablishing riparian vegetation and allowing the floodplain to become functional. Social and political factors are being addressed through a county-based watershed group.

ISRP Review: Do not fund. The ISRP stated the need for a technically defensible master plan (or its equivalent) in place that defines critical elements of project planning, experimental design, and monitoring and evaluation.

Policy Response: Model watershed projects in the Lemhi, Pahsimeroi and East Fork Salmon Rivers are similar in nature to the work intended on the mainstem Salmon River. Because the Model Watershed Advisory Committee restricts itself to these three sub-basins, it was not feasible to coordinate this project through that program.

Council Recommendation: Project sponsors are in the process of developing a master plan. This is a cooperative effort including federal, state, and local governments, private industry and landowners. There are significant cost sharing efforts included. Project proponents have been working with the Corps who have agreed to assist with the funding for the watershed assessment plan on this twelve-mile reach. Total funding for the project, as estimated by the Corps, is $1.4 million with sixty-five percent of the funding provided by the Corps. Funding from the Corps for the feasibility study totals $209,000. The funding for the feasibility study, as well as the implementation dollars, is dependent on receipt of BPA funds for the year 2000. These funds were to be used in addition to landowner cost share to carry out restoration as determined by the plan currently in the development stage.

As this project is in the process of developing a Master Plan, with Corps matching funds that are dependent on BPA funds, the recommendation is to provide funding ($50,000) for this effort with the understanding that a Master Plan will be finalized and delivered. The Council believes that the ability to secure significant matching funds from outside sources and the unique collaborative effort underway presents policy issues to balance against the concerns presented by the ISRP sufficiently to recommend limited funding for this project this year. The Council does, however, strongly encourage the sponsors to deal substantively with the criticisms of the ISRP in its planning work, and will review the adequacy of the response in any future funding proposals for this project.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website