FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199607702

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

A watershed assessment has not been completed for the Lolo Creek watershed. This project proposes to complete a watershed assessment (Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale) in FY 2002.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Implementation costs for out years include completing 25 miles of road decommissioning per year. Culvert repair/replacement will double in the number implemented in out-years because inventories will be completed.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

In general a very thorough, informative proposal. The long-needed watershed analysis is scheduled to be completed in September 2001. If this is not done, all other project work should be halted until it is, so management can be designed according to WA findings.

The proposal states that bioengineering is the project's approach for stabilizing stream banks. However, Figures 2 and 3 show hard structure (rock rip-rap and a rock current deflector), in other words, the opposite of bioengineering. Rock rip-rap is primarily counterproductive for fish habitat. It usually provides little habitat compared with live vegetation and wood debris, and it prevents natural channel migration. Natural stream channels migrate at a moderate rate, in the process providing fish habitat by such actions as carving bank undercuts, toppling trees into the channel, and recruiting gravel to the bed. The illustrations indicate that the sponsor is constructing so as to lock the channel in an unchanging course.

How many stream miles have been directly benefited by the project since 1996, will be in FY 2002, and are anticipated to be during the projected rest of the project life?

Of what does the consultation in Tasks 1b consist? "Consult" seems a vague term, and the cost of $22,200 seems high.

The reviewers are given to understand that the project's biological results will be evaluated under the NPTH M&E project. The project history states only activities performed, not biological results achieved. The proposal should contain results in terms of fish.

Tasks 3E and 3F involve survey of in-stream structures that were installed in the 1970s-80s to identify and remedy problems. The wording indicates that problem assessment will be on an engineering basis. Biologists should be involved to determine in each case whether there is really any problem for fish—and to make sure that engineering remedies will not cause ecological problems.

Although this proposal describes some M and E linkages ("tiers"), 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.

The review group also 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 response seems to indicate that the M&E procedures will be upgraded, in that they will be done by or coordinated with the appropriate monitoring projects, such as 28045 and 198335003. The reviewers caution that it is essential to have the advice of a biometrician and experimental analyst. Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling approaches, as suggested, can be instructive, but a control and treatment comparison of flow regimes, temperature, sedimentation and the fish response must be included. Problems of probably confounding with results of supplementation are evident in the projects M&E. Likewise, an analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., indicate the amount of work required before a positive impact is measurable, and the likelihood of failure).

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
This project is not in a priority subbasin and therefore is not geographically consistent with Action 149. This project has been ongoing since 1996. Lolo Creek is not a large watershed. Is it possible to determine how many culverts have been replaced and how many are left? It seems to be time to reevaluate this project.

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website