FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199901500

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 scope

The change in scope allows the entire watershed acreage to be addressed. The FY01 proposal only treated the lower third of the watershed. This change in scope will allow the upper two-thirds of the watershed to be treated.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

An ongoing concern of reviewers is being able to attribute improvements in soil and water management to fish and to fish habitat; the proposal does not show evidence that this issue is satisfactorily resolved. Stream temperature monitoring (goal IV, objective 2) might provide valuable information. Please describe where the six dataloggers will be placed and discuss how the data will be used (comparison with existing data, ability to compare before/after treatment and in paired, treatment-vs-control subwatersheds, etc.). Also, provide additional detail about how BMP effectiveness (goal IV, objective 1) will be assessed in terms of measured variables other than stream temperature.

Project design must be made specific. Please remedy vague statements, such as that for Goal IV, Obj. 1, Task A, which says: "collect...data...as appropriate." What constitutes appropriateness? Another example is "selected sites." How will the selection be done?

A stronger monitoring approach would be for project staff to engage more actively in the design of the fish population monitoring conducted under proposal 99901600. We suggest that staff provide a response demonstrating that such fish population monitoring will help assess gains of projects 199901500 and 199901600. In addition, see the ISRP's programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report.

Comment:

Comment:

Nevertheless, reviewers encountered several red flags in evaluating this work. Supplemental material was requested and received during the response process for project 199901500. The 1995 Big Canyon Creek Environmental Assessment helped reviewers appreciate the "groundwork" involved in the planning process by the Soil and Water Conservation District. However, that EA included a 1994 report by Interfluve Inc. (funded by BLM) regarding geomorphologic measures needed to fix a problem in Big Canyon Creek: 7 miles in the central portion of the drainage goes dry every summer. The report indicates this was the result of a 1965 flood that removed fine sediment from the valley floor, and now the lack of fines results in subterranean flow, with those two factors now also limiting establishment of new riparian vegetation. Reviewers were not aware of this situation prior to the response process, and are now concerned that establishing a program to reduce sediment input from headwaters (via this proposal) will do relatively little to fix the real problem for Big Canyon anadromous fish populations.

Watershed assessment is another red flag. As part of a companion project, a planning document (Big Canyon Aquatic Assessment) has been prepared by the Center for Environmental Education of Washington State University. However, this report (examined by the ISRP in the response process) was never intended as a watershed assessment and does not function as such. It instead follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual that "uses a cookbook approach that walks the user through procedures that assess natural processes or features related to fish habitat and water quality. It was designed to be used by the average citizen interested in watersheds". While providing good insight into the geography and land-use patterns of the drainage, it is nearly all generic when discussing potential limiting factors and includes no fish or fish habitat data. In the view of the ISRP it does not even marginally function as a standard watershed assessment.

An ongoing concern of reviewers is being able to attribute improvements in soil and water management to fish and to fish habitat; the proposal and response do not show evidence that this difficult issue is satisfactorily resolved. See ISRP programmatic statement on M&E.

Comment:

Comments
$1 million over five years is requested to implement BMPs in a drainage that will still have water quality and quantity limitations. Only steelhead are listed in these streams and there needs to be prioritization of these BMP projects. Although the project mentions riparian buffers as a BMP there is discussion of type, specifications, or enrollment. There is not sufficient detail on these BMPs to evaluate this project under Action 153.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400

Comment:

Bonneville comment focuses on a desire to have the Nez Perce project evaluated relative to its draft proposed interim policy for funding projects on federally owned lands. This project is not on federally owned land. The sponsor reports that 96% of the watershed is on private land, and 4% on BLM land. No activities are proposed on the BLM land. Bonneville's only other comment is that the work should be "deferred" until after subbasin planning without further explanation why or how subbasin planning will change the way that the sponsors or local groups who support this work will likely change. The Council notes that deferring an ongoing project is tantamount to a defunding recommendation. The Council also notes that the Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in FY 2002 to address the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.

These are ongoing proposals focused on implementation of habitat restoration based on a completed assessment. They have an ESA connection to the 2002 Implementation Plan. The work continues to be a priority of the province prioritization group. The watershed is associated with a nearby acclimation facility that is being funded by Bonneville (#199801005). The Council recommends that these ongoing projects continue to be funded in the amounts set out in Table 1. The Council also recommends that as a condition of this approval that the sponsor submit additional information to the ISRP that: (1) demonstrates the linkage of the activities proposed in these projects to anadromous and/or resident fish; (2) provides information regarding the potential of the treatment streams to produce steelhead; (3) explains how or why the dewatering of a portion of the stream will or will not act as a factor that severely limits the potential for success of the proposed activities; (4) how monitoring and evaluation will be conducted to measure the effectiveness of improving habitat conditions that result in fisheries benefits. The Council recommends that the ISRP review this information and report to the Council and sponsor on these specific issues. Because these are ongoing field-based projects, the Council recommends that the ISRP review occur concurrently with the implementation of the proposals FY 02 activities.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website