FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200301800

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
28010 Narrative	Narrative
28010 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
28010 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Nez Perce Salmon River Terrestrial
Proposal ID	200301800
Organization	Nez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Loren A. Kronemann
Mailing address	P.O. Box 365 Lapwai. ID 83540
Phone / email	2088432162 / kronemannla@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project	Keith Lawrence
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Protect, enhance, and restore native canyon grassland, and associated riparian habitats within the Lower Salmon and Little Salmon River Watersheds, along with high elevation wet meadows which are the headwaters and water storage systems for the same.
Target species	California quail, Downey woodpecker, Song sparrow, Chukar, Mule-deer, black-capped chickadee, blue grouse, beaver, western meadowlark, and yellow warbler. Elk, BH sheep, M. quail, Steelhead, Spr. & sum chin, Bulltrout, and cutthroat may also be affected.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Lower Salmon and Little Salmon Watersheds
45.55	-116.31	Lower Salmon River
45.4168	-116.3132	Little Salmon River

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
	N/A This is a new startup project.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
19920570	Dworshak Wild. Mit.Trust- IDFG's Craig Mt. Project	The sw portion of the IDFG - Craig Mtn. project falls into the Lower Salmon River watershed.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Acquire properties for restoration protection and long term management for the benefit of acquatic and terrestrial resources. 3000 acres/year	a. Develop a GIS data base which tracks the limiting factors, which affect both fish and terrestrial resources & where these limiting factors occur.	2	$89,805
	b. Develop a prioritization process which will identify critical areas, limiting factors in each area, and restored properties which will address the limiting factors.	2	$29,935
	c. Plan annual activities to determine the availability of willing sellers and run the available properties through the prioritization process.	20	$17,961
	d. Conduct pre-acquisition activities (hazardous waste surveys, appraisals,title search, etc.)	20	$29,935
	e. Update GIS data annually as information is available.	60	$23,948
2. Protect, restore and/or enhance all acquired lands.	a. Develop current site specific base line for each land acquisition.	20	$89,805
	b. Determine future desire conditions for each land acquisition.	20	$17,961
	c. Develop site specific restoration plans.	20	$29,935
	d. Develop site specific management plans once restoration work has benn completed.	20	$29,935
3. Monitor habitat conditions to ensure desired mitigation level is reach and maintained	a. Develop long term, site specific monitoring and evaluation program considering both habitat and population resources.	20	$47,896
	b. Adjust monitoring plans according to data collected.	60	$20,936
4. NEPA complience work	a. Perform NEPA complience	20	$75,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Acquire properties for restoration protection and long term management for the benefit of acquatic and terrestrial resources. 3000 acres/year	3	6	$328,368
2. Protect, restore and/or enhance all acquired lands.	3	6	$287,323
3. Monitor habitat conditions to ensure desired mitigation level is reach and maintained	3	6	$118,007
4. NEPA complience.	3	6	$300,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$375,052	$226,962	$217,045	$214,639

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Acquire properties for restoration protection and long term management for the benefit of acquatic and terrestrial resources. 3000 acres/year	a. Secure land in perpetuity (fee simple or easement)	20	$2,286,708
2. Protect, restore and/or enhance all acquired lands to realize increase in habitat value.	a. Impliment site specific restoration plan.	20	$6,118
	b. Impliment site specific O&M plan.	60	$6,118

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Acquire properties for restoration protection and long term management for the benefit of acquatic and terrestrial resources. 3000 acres/year	3	6	$9,140,344
2. Protect, restore and/or enhance all acquired lands to realize increase in habitat value.	3	6	$46,781

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$2,295,732	$2,297,008	$2,297,008	$2,297,377

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Adaptively manage all acquired properties to ensure permanent habitat values.	a. Manage habitat according to site specific management plans	60	$0
	b. Apply adaptive management as M&E data would dictate	60	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Adaptively manage all acquired properties to ensure permanent habitat values.	3	6	$1,980,114

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$284,702	$487,817	$568,441	$639,154

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Monitor habitat and populations to ensure the desire level of mitigation level is reached & maintained.	a. Execute the site specific monitoring and evaluation plans.	60	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Monitor habitat and populations to ensure the desire level of mitigation level is reached & maintained.	3	6	$182,683

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$57,473	$62,605	$62,605

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 5.5	$223,025
Fringe		$46,742
Supplies		$73,400
Travel		$18,099
Indirect		$82,730
Capital		$2,263,000
NEPA		$75,000
Subcontractor		$20,000
		$2,801,996

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$2,801,996
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$2,801,996
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

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. This is a proposal for future acquisition of 3,000 acres/year of terrestrial habitat in the Little Salmon watershed and in the Lower Salmon from Whitebird Creek to the Salmon-Snake confluence. It addresses a clear set of general needs in those areas. Nevertheless, more attention to the planned approach, criteria for prioritization of possible acquisitions (including ties to anadromous fish habitat where appropriate) seem warranted.

The monitoring and evaluation section is particularly appreciated by the ISRP. The review group suggests that the monitoring effort 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.

Additionally, a response is needed that shows evidence of active coordination of this proposal with the Idaho Department of Fish & Game's proposal 28018. Both are in the same area and propose similar strategies, i.e. acquisitions including easements and outright purchases.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

The sponsors have identified several properties that could be purchased. The funding of this proposal would allow for the immediate implementation of habitat work following the purchase. The NPT and IDFG will coordinate at the technical and policy level throughout the life of the project. When funding this project, project number 28018 funding should be considered. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.

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

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable in part to develop and complete planning and prioritization effort. The work in the Lower Salmon should be treated as a geographic region with project selection and prioritization at that geographic scale.

The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600). The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents are also 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.

This is a proposal addresses a clear set of general needs in those areas. Nevertheless, the proposal is not amendable to scientific review. More attention to planning and criteria for prioritization of possible acquisitions (including ties to anadromous fish habitat where appropriate) are needed.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU

Comments

Already ESA Req?

Biop?

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
D

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. Future funding of wildlife mitigation in this area will be contingent upon resolution of wildlife crediting issues. It appears that there are no further construction/inundation wildlife credits available to be applied against this proposed project.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council recommendation: These projects [28010, 28018] are linked and focus on habitat acquisition and protection for the benefit of both fish and wildlife species. The ISRP found each fundable in part, and emphasized the need to better detail regarding the criteria for prioritization of acquisitions. The ISRP encourages using the approach developed by the Salish-Kootenai tribe The Council received NMFS comments only on 28018, which stated that the project could respond to RPA 154, and noted that there are some habitats in the lower Salmon that have potential for anadromous fish, and encouraged a focus on those. Bonneville's comments suggest that neither be funded at this time, and that there may not be wildlife mitigation credits available.

The Council recommends combining these projects and funding them at a substantially lower level than proposed. The figures are presented in Table 1. The sponsors have stated a willingness to reduce their proposals to target a total of 2000 acres from the originally conceived 12,000 acres. The Council also recommends that the proposals focus on acquisition of lands that are currently productive, or provide linkages to currently productive habitat that also have recognizable benefits to anadromous fish as well as terrestrial species. This recommendation is conditioned on the sponsors providing clarity on criteria their acquisition prioritization during the contracting process. The Council recommends that those criteria, at least in part, focus on currently productive habitat and habitats that have some anadromous fish benefits.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
To be determine

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Defer funding until project can be reviewed for possible implementation of RPA 150.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

land acquisition. 02 geared to planning, 03 & 04 was geared to acquisition. Split 02 planning funds 50% in 2004 and 50% in 2005. CAPITAL PROJECT. Consider combining with Salmon project (other land project). Issue 12 from rec. Issue paper

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

No funding had been provided for this project which was approved by ISRP, NOAA, and the PPC. Project is to be combined with 200303000 for a total of $1,997,000 to be capitalized in 2004..

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

Funding category:
capital

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$90,000	$0	$0

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website