FY 2002 Mountain Snake 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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Program is being restructured to make adaptive management more explicit and for consistency with new federal agency plans. Additional costs associated with potential acquisition of conservation easements or fee title. In addition the monitoring program will be expanded.

Reason for change in scope

Program is being restructured to make adaptive management more explicit and for consistency with new federal agency plans.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

This section of the Salmon is indeed a problem, and is little used for summer rearing. However, the cause may be because of water temperature. Riparian improvement would be a good thing to do, but because of the width of stream and potentially relatively warm water entering from above that is also exposed to warming through a rocky reach, reviewers were cautious regarding the efficacy of the expensive, heavily engineered approach proposed. Stream temperature modeling should be used to assess if habitat changes as proposed could significantly reduce summer temperature of water to within the range acceptable to salmonids.

No data on fish are presented. Instead this is described as a holistic project. As in the Red River meadow project (Clearwater subbasin), the lack of ties actually made to fish habitat and production should be rectified.

Detailed plans must be given (or referenced) for monitoring and evaluation. Plans for construction should be reviewed by an independent engineering group before final funding.

This is a long rambling complicated proposal that is difficult to review from a scientific and technical point of view. The bottom line in the previous FY00 review by the ISRP was that "....we focus 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."

In the current proposal, the proponents indicate that studies of the geomorphology of the reach, completed during the past two years, have documented the recent changes and problems associated with local stabilization projects. It is also stated that "The Walla Walla District Corps of Engineers is conducting a Feasibility Study under Section 206, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration on the 12 mile reach of the Salmon River near Challis, Idaho." ..."The feasibility portion of this project is expected to be completed in late winter of 2002 with construction beginning during the summer of 2002. Construction is likely to occur over the course of several years as different landowners become partners." As in the FY00 review, if this proposal is funded it is necessary to take much of it on faith that the program is technically sound and will have biological benefits.

The proponents indicate that some monitoring data are available. Simple graphs or tables presenting past results should be included in the proposal. Monitoring and evaluation is proposed, but in very general terms. Details on exactly what variables are to be measured and what methods are to be used must be included or references given to published documentation. A good model to be used for detailing monitoring and evaluation plans is contained in Proposal #28016.

There are aspects of the proposed budget that appear to be inconsistent for the 2003 out year costs of obtaining critical conservation/access easements.

Comment:

Although the proposals have new project numbers they are ongoing projects (i.e., 199401700, 199306200 19960700). The BPA COTR, who was present during the review, indicates that these proposals are not characterized by a change of scope, however there was significant disagreement with this statement. Although the tasks are considered a high priority, there is concern among CBFWA reviewers about the size of the proposed budgets and the ability to implement actions at the proposed rate. In each proposal the same writing contractor and the University of Idaho is identified. Are the U of I employees separate individuals for each project? Baseline M&E (i.e., juvenile counts and redd counts since 1998 and physical data collection since 1985) data is being collected through IDFG activities Detailed M&E plans have not been developed to date but will be developed as the project moves forward. Data collected to date show that rearing populations are higher then elsewhere and that by opening the side-channels the population will greatly benefit. The sponsor understands a watershed assessment is important and indicated that other agencies are working towards performing the activity. Considering the magnitude of implementation proposed, the sponsor should seek CREP implementation funding as cost share as has been done by similar SWCD proposals in the Columbia Plateau Province.

Comment:

It is clear that the agencies involved have indeed done a nice job in getting local landowners poised to "collaborate on a single vision and to consider the reach in a holistic sense". Unfortunately, it is not clear to the ISRP that enhancement of anadromous fish populations will necessarily follow from all of the tasks.

A watershed assessment should indicate the priorities of tasks in this project. For example, if high stream temperature generated upstream is the key limiting factor, the heavily engineered approach proposed in project may be secondary in priority. Evidence that this reach provides a number of high quality thermal refuges and assessment of the potential to provide more should be given.

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
There appears to be interest from a number of local landowners in participating in this project. It has the benefit of a cost-share with the Army Corps of Engineers, but is also very expensive. 85% of the FY2002 funds ($1,844,000) are allocated to purchasing fee titles from willing landowners, although these are not identified. Subsequent outyear budgets have increased expectations for purchasing fee titles. Do the likely benefits justify the cost?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
152, 153

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
149, 152

Comment:

The sponsor has responded to the Council's general funding level guidance and adjusted its budget to reflect Fiscal Year 2001 level, plus 3.4%. Though this project is located in the Upper Salmon, it is dependent on a 65% cost share from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tracking the cost share funding would be extremely difficult if funds were intermingled with the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project budget (see above), so the Council recommends that it be dealt with separately. Although the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project office has provided some level of support through various members of the Watershed Technical Team and most recently time dedicated from an USBWP Planner, administrative support and project management has been provided through the Custer Soil and Water Conservation District Office. This Project Budget cannot be merged with the other Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project Budgets.

Bonneville provided a "A conditional" for this project, supporting the same sort of passive habitat restoration activities that it supported for the other Upper Salmon River SWCD proposals. The Council recommendation is consistent with Bonneville's comments.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website