FY 2000 proposal 199303800

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: None

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This technically inadequate proposal does not reassure that the project (commencing in 1993) is succeeding, habitat is improving and the project is contributing to increased numbers of spawning anadromous fish. Given adequate supporting data, this project may be entitled to consideration for funding over a longer period of time but only with provisions for science-based assessments at suitable intervals, perhaps three to five years. Effectiveness of this project might be monitored in cooperation with an expanded survey in Project No. 9801600.

Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Streams or reaches of streams where fencing is to be installed are not specifically identified. Why does not the Forest Service itself fund the work? There is no explanation why these streams or reaches of streams are accorded high priority. Are all streams on Forest Service land fenced? The presumed relationship of this project with other Bonneville projects is not articulated. The claim that this project has "maximized the desired result per dollar spent" is not corroborated by science-based evidence.

No evidence is offered to support the claim that this project is "an example of adaptive management." The proposal is silent on past efforts to measure salmonid populations in affected reaches of the stream(s) involved. No evidence of benefits to riparian vegetation or salmonids is provided from the presumed 98 percent efficiency claimed from installation of electric fencing.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Consider retiring the grazing allotments. How cost effective is fencing compared to retiring the allotment? Does this project provide a return on investment in perpetuity? Project appears to buy temporary (rather than permanent) solutions and creates a liability over time.

How wide are the set-backs?

Is funding the Forest Service to fence riparian areas an appropriate use of BPA mitigation dollars?

Comment:

Discussion/Background: This is a proposal to erect and maintain temporary fencing to protect 60 miles of riparian area on the North Fork John Day River. This project was in the category of existing projects not recommended by CBFWA, and so, under the general rules of decision adopted by the Council, would not be funded. However, a final decision on this project was delayed for additional Council review and consideration.

The Forest Service proposed protecting 60 miles of riparian vegetation by resetting 76 miles of seasonal electric fence and converting some (though the quantity is not specified) fencing to permanent barbed wire. The project received no funding recommendation from CBFWA (Tier 2) and received a delay funding recommendation from the ISRP. ISRP found the proposal technically inadequate. They questioned how particular stream reaches were accorded priority and also questioned the sponsor's claims of effectiveness of the project without providing any supporting scientific evidence.

Policy Issues: Council Member Brogiotti requested the Council delay a funding recommendation at the October work session pending further investigation of the project. The Forest Service provided a policy justification based upon Program measures 7.6B.4 and 7.6C.5. Measure 7.6B.4 instructs that priority should be accorded to actions that maximize the desired result per dollar spent and prioritizing actions that succeed at minimal cost. Measure 7.6C.5 requires federal management agencies to manage riparian areas to re-establish natural ecological functions.

USFS also argues that not funding the project will cause them to choose between requesting take permits from the NMFS or refusing to allow 21 grazing permits on the Umatilla National Forest.

Council Recommendation: Though the project offers some protection to riparian areas at a modest cost, the proposal provides little detail on its success in providing habitat recovery in key anadromous fish production areas, nor any detail on its 98 percent success at exclusion. The Council, through the Fish and Wildlife Committee, received additional information from the project sponsor to determine if the questions and issues raised by the ISRP that prompted its recommendation to delay funding may be addressed. The Council found that these questions were or could be addressed in contracting, and recommends that this project be funded for one year. The Council urged the Service to find funding outside of the Bonneville fund in future years for this project.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: