homehome

about us

energy

news

reports &
papers

contact us

  Fish & wildlife arrow Program arrow 2000 workplan
  


Council recommendations on FY 2000 projects made in Twin Falls and decisions remaining for made in December meetings

November 8, 1999

MEMORANDUM

TO: Project sponsors and interested parties
FROM: Bob Lohn, Director, Fish and Wildlife Division

The Council made the second of what will be a series of decisions on recommendations to Bonneville for funding fish and wildlife projects in fiscal year 2000 at its November, 3rd meeting in Twin Falls.  The purpose of this letter is to provide notice of the decisions made by the Council on the second block of projects that it recommends for funding from the direct program budget in FY 2000.  While the Council decisions on the following projects are final, the final formal decision document from the Council on its recommendations for FY 2000 funding will be provided to Bonneville and distributed to the public in December after the Council makes the last in its series of project recommendations.

The Council made decisions to recommend to Bonneville that it fund another 72 fish and wildlife projects in FY 2000 at its November 3rd meeting in Twin Falls.  Each of these projects were recommended by CBFWA as ?tier 1? projects in its Annual Work Plan, but did not receive a rating of ?fund? in the ISRP's original review and recommendations report.  However, after the ISRP considered additional information submitted by project sponsors and CBFWA in the ?fix-it-loop? process, each of these projects received a favorable rating from the ISRP and were recommended for funding by the Panel.  Thus, like the first block of projects recommended for funding by the Council during its September meetings in Spokane, these 72 projects enjoy a consensus ?fund? recommendation from CBFWA and the ISRP.

The projects approved by the Council in Twin Falls are identified in the attached table.  The projects in section 2.A.1 of the table are recommended for funding at the CBFWA recommended level.  The recommendation is subject only to the generally applicable condition that project sponsors and Bonneville are to ensure that specific points of concern noted by the ISRP in its response review are addressed and documented by Bonneville in the contracting process.  The identical condition applied to the projects previously recommended by the Council in September.

Section 2.A.2 of the table identifies the lamprey projects that the Council has recommended to date.  Three new lamprey projects are being recommended for funding.  The Council is holding its recommendation on the ongoing lamprey project (9402600) pending a resolution of policy issues (discussed more fully below).  Sections 2.A.3. and 2.A.4 of the table identify projects that are recommended for funding in FY 2000 subject to the conditions stated by the ISRP in its response review regarding project 8903500 (for projects in category 2.A.3), and project 8811525 (for projects in category 2.A.4.).  Generally speaking, the Council is adopting the ISRP's recommendations that the activities funded through these projects should not be expanded in scope or nature until subbasin planning and province level reviews are conducted in these areas.

Rounding out the remainder of the 72 projects recommended in Twin Falls are those identified in section 2.C. of the table.  These four projects received a rating of ?delay funding? in the ISRP's response review.  However, the Council is recommending that these projects be funded, subject to Bonneville and the project sponsor addressing the deficiency identified in the project specific ISRP evaluation comments contained in its October 29, 1999 report.  The Council has reviewed the ISRP comments for each of these projects, and believes that the element of concern noted by the ISRP has been explicitly noted in the report, and that these are issues that can be resolved by Bonneville and the project sponsor during the contracting process.

The Council did not make recommendation decisions in Twin Falls for several projects that received favorable ratings by the ISRP in the response review.  Decisions on these projects are being held for further consideration of policy reasons. Included in the group of projects that are currently under policy consideration are:

  • The PATH related projects identified in section 2.A.5.  The Council continues to seek clarification from these project sponsors on issues of how oversight and administration of this technical work will be achieved, and a more definite description of the tasks that will be funded.
  • Monitoring of GBD Signs in Adult Salmon (project 20143).  The issue of whether or not adult monitoring will be a requirement for the grant of spill waivers from state water quality agencies has not been adequately clarified.
  • Pacific lamprey research and restoration (project 9402600).  This project improved its rating with the ISRP from ?fund in part? to ?fund? in the response review.  However, the project seeks funding for implementation activities in FY 2000, and as a matter of policy, the Council and the sponsor have previously agreed that a restoration plan would be provided to the Council for review and approval before implementation actions are funded.  The Council has been advised that a restoration plan may be submitted by the project sponsor in the near future.
  • Hungry Horse Mitigation-Nonnative fish removal/Hatchery Production (project 9101904).  This project improved its rating from ?fund in part? to ?fund? in the ISRP's response review.  However, the Council, as a matter of policy, does not intend to fund that portion of the project associated with the removal of lake trout from Lake McDonald.  Council staff will work with the project sponsor to discuss the disposition of the remainder of this project, and a final Council recommendation is expected at its December meetings.
  • Evaluate Rebuilding of White Sturgeon Population in the Lower Snake River (project 9700900).  This project improved its rating from ?fund in part? to ?fund? in the ISRP response review.  However, the Council deferred its recommendation on this project at the Twin Falls meeting.  The issue of concern is whether or not the project is appropriately coordinated with and complimentary to the other white sturgeon projects and the sturgeon umbrella proposal.  Council staff will address this with the project sponsor, and attempt to resolve this issue in time for final Council decision at its December meetings.

The Council did make a final decision in Twin Falls that it would not recommend five new projects for funding that the ISRP rated as ?do not fund? in its initial review.  These projects are: 20017 (Restore Habitat, Yankee Fork Salmon; 20022 NEOH Planning and Coordination; 20025 Deschutes R. Stray S. Steelhead Assessment; 20079 Assess Steelhead Escapement & Genetics S. Fork Salmon; 20080 Evaluate Feeding Strategy to Reduce Residualism).  The Council chose to defer a decision on one project in this category of new ?yes/no projects? -- project 20049 Evaluate Sediment Transport in Spawning Habitat, Kootenai R.  It is anticipated that the Council make a final recommendation decision on that project at its December meetings.

The Council did not make final funding recommendation decisions in Twin Falls for projects that were rated as ?fund in part? by the ISRP in its response review.  These projects are identified in the table in section 2.B.  The sponsors of these projects have the opportunity to present the Council with policy related reasons as to why the project should be funded as proposed by CBFWA rather than as suggested by the ISRP.  Sponsors of these projects have previously been provided a letter (also posted at the Council's web-site) describing the process and criteria for making any policy based concerns known to the Council.  Written responses are due by November 10th, and will be considered by the Fish and Wildlife Committee on November 30th.

If the sponsors do not present policy reasons for funding a ?fund in part? project at the proposed level, or if the Council does not adopt any such reasons presented, the Council staff will consult with project sponsors and Bonneville to determine the appropriate funding level for these projects in FY 2000.  It is anticipated that the Council will make final recommendations for these projects during its December meetings.

The Council did not make a final recommendation for project 20023 (Hanford Reach Steelhead Stock Investigation), which is a new project originally, rated as ?fund in part? by the ISRP.  Because it was a new project, it was not eligible for the response review process.  The Council staff will work with the project sponsor and Bonneville to determine the appropriate level of funding should this project proceed.  It is anticipated that the Council will make a final recommendation on this project at its December meetings.

Finally, there were 11 projects that were rated as ?do not fund? in the original ISRP review that did not improve their rating, and were rated as ?do not fund? in the response review.  These projects are identified in section 2.D. of the attached table.  The Council did not make final recommendation decisions on these projects in Twin Falls.  Sponsors of these projects have the opportunity to explain policy reasons that warrant funding the project in accordance with the process and criteria that has been established and previously distributed, as discussed above.

If the Council does not fund these projects for policy reasons, Council staff, the project sponsor, and Bonneville staff will consult on a transition plan for these projects as discussed in Version 4 of the ?rolling issue memorandum? (posted at the Council's web-site).  It is possible that final funding recommendation decisions on these projects will not be made for all of these projects by the close of the December Council meetings.

top