FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 200205400

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
27014 Narrative	Narrative
27014 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
Blue Mountain: Asotin Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Blue Mountain: Asotin Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Protect and Restore the Asotin Creek Watershed
Proposal ID	200205400
Organization	Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Emmit E. Taylor Jr.
Mailing address	P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email	2088433011 / emmitt@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project	Ira Jones
Review cycle	Blue Mountain
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Asotin
Short description	Contribute to an on-going watershed restoration effort by working in collaboration with private and federal entities to address sedimentation into stream and tributaries from road related sources on forested ground within the watershed.
Target species	Species most actively targeted in the Asotin Creek watershed are Endangered Snake River summer steelhead, spring chinook salmon, and bull trout. Native populations of redband trout will also benefit from habitat protection and restroration projects.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.31	-117.25	Asotin Creek flows into the Snake River at the town of Asotin, WA.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
RM&E RPA Action 183

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 154	NMFS	BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	N/A

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199401805	Continue Coordination & Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects	Our project proposal completments this effort by addressing upland sediment sources due to forest roads.
0	Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed	This new project proposal will evaluate productivity and survival rates on anadromous and resident fish. Our proposal will reduce sedimentation from forest roads, therefore protecting and restoring fish habitat.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Identify partnerships with the Umatilla National Forest (UNF), Asotin County Conservation District (ACCD) and private landowners and finalize cost-share and agency responsibilities for watershed restoration work.	a. Develop Partnering Agreement on watershed restoration activities to be performed cooperatively in FY2002.	on-going	$3,800
2. Survey, assess and identify roads on forest service and private forested land for obliteration or improvements. This task would be a collaborative effort with the UNF, ACCD and private landowners.	a. Coordinate survey and assessment areas and protocol with UNF and ACCD.	on-going	$2,900
	b. Identify treatment measures on roads with excessive sediment problems or potential sediment problems.	on-going	$5,600
3. Reduce the risk for further stream channel degradation from mass wasting and surface erosion related to 22.04 miles of identified roads for obliteration on Forest Service land and further identified roads on forest service and private land.	a. Complete all planning, pre-work needs and logistics.	on-going	$2,900
	b. Provide training for the road obliteration crew.	on-going	$2,900
	c. Complete all necessary NEPA and permitting.	on-going	$3,800
	d. Contract development and awarding.	on-going	$3,800

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Identify partnerships with the Umatilla National Forest (UNF), Asotin County Conservation District (ACCD) and private landowners and finalize cost-share and agency responsibilities for watershed restoration work.	2003	2006	$16,400
2. Survey, assess and identify roads on forest service and private forested land for obliteration or improvements. This task would be a collaborative effort with the UNF, ACCD and private landowners.	2003	2006	$36,600
3. Reduce the risk for further stream channel degradation from mass wasting and surface erosion related to 22.04 miles of identified roads for obliteration on Forest Service land and further identified roads on forest service and private land.	2003	2006	$57,700

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$26,500	$27,300	$28,100	$28,900

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Survey, assess and identify roads on forest service and private forested land for obliteration or improvements. This task would be a collaborative effort with the UNF, ACCD and private landowners.	a. Survey roads.	on-going	$21,400
2. Reduce the risk for further stream channel degradation from mass wasting and surface erosion related to 22.04 miles of identified roads for obliteration on Forest Service land and further identified roads on forest service and private land.	a. Obliterate approximately 10 miles of road per year.	on-going	$46,400	Yes
	b. GPS obliterated roads.	on-going	$3,800
3. Dissemination of project information and peer review. The NPTFWP will take the lead agency with this objective.	a. Complete quarterly and end of the year reports as they become due.	on-going	$5,600
	b. Perform necessary presentations to the public and project peers.	on-going	$3,800

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Survey, assess and identify roads on forest service and private forested land for obliteration or improvements. This task would be a collaborative effort with the UNF, ACCD and private landowners.	2003	2006	$92,200
2. Reduce the risk for further stream channel degradation from mass wasting and surface erosion related to 22.04 miles of identified roads for obliteration on Forest Service land and further identified roads on forest service and private land.	2003	2006	$216,300
3. Dissemination of project information and peer review. The NPTFWP will take the lead agency with this objective.	2003	2006	$40,500

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$83,400	$85,900	$88,500	$91,200

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
N/A			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Monitor and evaluate road obliteration implementation and effectiveness in cooperation with the UNF and ACCD.	a. Review objectives and tasks of the Road Obliteration Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Plan and make the necessary changes for finalization.	on-going	$2,900
	b. Complete field data collection on 5 new monitoring sites.	on-going	$5,600
	c. Compile and analyze data, making recommendations for improvements on the monitoring plan and road obliteration practices.	on-going	$2,900
	d. Produce Road Obliteration Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Final Report.	on-going	$2,900

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor and evaluate road obliteration implementation and effectiveness in cooperation with the UNF and ACCD.	2003	2006	$61,600

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$14,700	$15,200	$15,600	$16,100

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: Hydrologist - 3/4 FTE, 3 seasonals	$52,300
Fringe	as estimated by NPT Finance Dept.	$11,800
Supplies		$7,900
Travel		$3,100
Indirect	20.9% as estimated by NPT Finance Department	$15,500
Capital		$0
NEPA	Included in personnel costs.	$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor	excavator and operator	$25,500
Other	vehicles	$4,900
		$121,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$121,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$121,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

N/A

Reason for change in scope

N/A

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Asotin County Conservation District	Coodination and planning with private landowers.	$10,000	in-kind
Natural Resoruce Conservation Service	Technical assistance.	$30,000	in-kind
Private Landowners	Personel time.	$10,000	in-kind
Umatilla National Forest	Personnel time.	$10,000	in-kind
Umatilla National Forest	Road oblit.	$10,000	cash

Other budget explanation

N/A

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. The PI's have the requisite experience in road obliteration.

Project goal is to obliterate 22 miles of a series of old (15-20 yrs) logging roads that parallel the N. Fork of Asotin Cr. The roads in this and upper Charley Creek are significant sediment sources. Area supports significant juvenile steelhead rearing. However, area has high road densities. Another goal is to reduce cobble embeddedness from 35% (current) to 20%. The project needs an M&E component. Such a component may involve basin-level or watershed-level assessments, at least some of which are likely present in other proposals from the subbasin. The Asotin group might want to seriously discuss how to collaboratively monitor results of their work at the larger scales they address. Stream sedimentation is a common theme, and this is assumed to affect fish. Stream listings and de-listings, and water quality sampling done by other agencies, may provide another source of relevant assessment data.

Why 22.04 miles identified for road obliteration (Objective 3), when Objective 2 calls for inventory, assessment, prioritization, and development of implementation alternatives? Defining 22.04 miles for obliteration, seems premature given Objective 2. Objective 4 is inadequate in the present proposal. Rather than describing how M&E (i.e., project effectiveness in this instance) will be conducted and the structural and biological effectiveness of the project assessed, the objective describes a process for defining an M&E protocol (Task A). The M&E should be specified at this time for review. See the ISRP's general comments on M&E at the beginning of this report and the general comments found in the Nez Perce Tribe's habitat proposals in the Clearwater.

The review group 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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

The proposal addresses RPAs 152 and 400. Monitoring for the proposed work will be performed through Project 199401805 and the LSRCP.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. Adequate response; however, project needs to pay strong attention to monitoring the post-implementation results from the obliteration projects. Literature results from obliteration projects have ranged from very positive to very negative, the latter actually compounding the original problems of run-off and sedimentation. Thus, careful monitoring through this or a companion project and subsequent evaluation of results is critical. To assist in formulating 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.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
In part, this project contributes to assessments by surveying and assessing problem roads. Project is to contribute an on-going watershed restoration effort by working in collaboration with private and Federal entities to reduce sedimentation into stream and tributaries from road-related sources on forested ground, and to reduce cobble embeddedness from 35% (current) to 20%. Possible survival improvements if habitat modifications have intended effects.

Comments
The project needs an M&E component which will assess the structural & biological effectiveness of the project on, for e.g., juvenile steelhead rearing.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and is reviewed under BPA's policy for funding habitat projects on federal lands.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council Recommendation:

The Nez Perce Tribe proposed Project 27014 to obliterate roads on Forest Service lands to reduce sediment loads in Asotin Creek. Asotin County commented that the project was a priority for them. Bonneville noted the project should await subbasin planning and the adoption of its policy for funding habitat projects on federal lands. The NMFS stated the project would help implement RPA 154.

The Council believes the project provides significant benefits to listed stocks within the subbasin to warrant proceeding with the project prior to the development of a subbasin plan. As discussed in the programmatic issues, the Council intends to rely substantially upon the ISRP's thorough provincial review to determine if there is sufficient coordination, information and context to permit new projects to proceed prior to having a subbasin plan completed. The ISRP did find this new project fundable even without a subbasin plan. Additionally, the Council believes holding the project in abeyance prior to the adoption of a federal lands funding policy is not compelling for the reasons discussed in the programmatic issues. The Council does note, however, that this project is responsive to the two major themes that we see in the draft interim Bonneville policy: (1) cost-sharing and (2) relationships to other Bonneville investment. The sponsors indicate that the project incorporates a federal cost share of $70,000 (compared with the $121,000 requested of Bonneville), which is approximately a 37% federal cost share. In addition, this proposed work is linked to past Bonneville investment. This project is downstream and builds upon over a million dollars of Bonneville past investments in the watershed through project 1994018905 discussed above (it is noteworthy that there has also been nearly $600,000 in non-Bonneville investment in the watershed as well). The Council believe that these factors demonstrate that this project is already incorporating the fundamental elements of Bonneville's draft policy, and had done so long before the draft interim policy was released. The Council would also recommend that Bonneville emphasize the need for project sponsors to pay strong attention to monitoring results of the obliteration projects post-implementation, in light of the comments of the ISRP. The project sponsors should be on notice that a demonstration of effectiveness, through this monitoring, will be an important consideration for the Council as it considers these or similar projects in the next provincial review cycle.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund. Meets requirements under BPA's draft policy for funding on Federal lands.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

First year of project. Reschedule of project to extend to the end of September. Road decommissioning. Can't predict what they will be spending until after 02 is over.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Budget for FY2005 is 3.4% of requested budget for FY2004.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$128,400	$128,400	$128,400

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website