FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200206900
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 28050 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28050 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Narrative for "Evaluating Stream Habitat Using the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan | Narrative Attachment |
| 28050 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 | Protect and Restore Little Salmon River |
| Proposal ID | 200206900 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Felix M. Mcgowan |
| Mailing address | PO Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088433011 / felixm@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ira Jones |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Protect valuable riparian corridor and fluvial aquatic habitat while increasing habitat quality and quantity within the mainstem Little Salmon river basin. |
| Target species | Spring/Summer Chinook, Steelhead trout, bull trout, pacific lamprey, cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.086 | -116.3055 | Little Salmon River mile 24 and approximately 2.5 miles of upstream river habitat and associated riverine-wetlands. Entire Little Salmon River watershed will be the focus of a watershed assesment. Outyear project work may occur anywhere within the LSR. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
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 |
|---|---|
| NA |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| NA | Although no projects currently exist in the LSR basin, BPA has an extensive history of funding projects aimed at improving water quality and fisheries habitat through riparian management. | |
| 0 | NPTF/W Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan | Monitoring data derived from this project will aid tracking the effectivenss of restoration activities in addition to providing vital watershed health trend data. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore riparian function and channel morphology to near natural conditions to reduce sediment and temperature inputs | b. Consult with appropriate agencies, landowners and organizations on planning, NEPA documentation, cost sharing opportunities and logistic support. | Ongoing | $5,538 | |
| c. Complete project specific habitat improvement monitoring plan for the riparian corridor. | Ongoing | $5,261 | ||
| d. Solicit further private landowner cooperation in an effort to strengthen the Litte Salmon River riparian restoration corridor. | 2 | $5,891 | ||
| e. Plan riparian planting schedule. | 4+ | $2,700 | ||
| f. Complete the required NEPA documentation for on the ground work. | 1 | $11,884 | ||
| g. Evaluate need for mechanical/in channel bank stabilization work. | 2 | $7,994 | ||
| Objective 2. Identify and prioritize additional watershed restoration needs within the Little Salmon River Basin. | a. Write and administer contract for the completion of a basin wide Watershed Assessment. | 1 | $5,883 | |
| b. Complete Watershed Assessment | 1 | $100,602 | Yes | |
| c. Develop a restoration action list using the completed watershed assessment. | 1+ | $2,761 | ||
| d. Pursue necessary agency and private landowner coordination for on the ground project completion. | Ongoing | $209 | ||
| Objective 3. Implement restoration action list produced upon completion of watershed assesment. | a. Consult with appropriate agencies, landowners and organizations on planning, NEPA documentation, cost sharing opportunities and logistic support. | Ongoing | $209 | |
| b. Complete appropriate permits and coordination to implement restoration action list. | 3 | $2,307 | ||
| c. Design of action list projects. | 1 | $209 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore riparian function and channel morphology to near natural conditions to reduce sediment and temperature inputs | 2003 | 2006 | $91,864 |
| Objective 2: Identify and prioritize additional watershed restoration needs within the Little Salmon River Basin. | 2002 | 2003 | $29,587 |
| Objective 3. Implement restoration action list produced upon completion of watershed assesment. | 2004 | 2006 | $47,312 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $35,762 | $53,742 | $45,193 | $33,165 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore riparian function and channel morphology to near natural conditions to reduce sediment and temperature inputs | a. Complete on the ground assessment/inventory of current participating landowner’s properties. | 2 | $9,502 | |
| k. Layout fence location. | 1 | $2,252 | ||
| k. Purchase fencing supplies to construct 3/4 mile wooden rail fence. | 1 | $11,386 | Yes | |
| h. Purchase riparian plants. | 4 | $13,379 | ||
| k. Construct riparian protection fence. | 1 | $28,017 | ||
| h. Implement riparian planting schedule. | 4 | $15,964 | ||
| i. Harvest riparian pole plantings | 3 | $6,884 | ||
| j. Plant riparian pole plantings | 3 | $6,282 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore riparian function and channel morphology to near natural conditions to reduce sediment and temperature inputs | 2003 | 2006 | $216,340 |
| Objective 3. Implement restoration action list produced upon completion of watershed assessment. | 2003 | 2006 | $442,602 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $63,507 | $55,998 | $269,674 | $269,761 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore riparian function and channel morphology to near natural conditions to reduce sediment and temperature inputs | 2003 | 2006 | $57,192 |
| Objective 3. Implement restoration action list produced upon completion of watershed assessment. | 2004 | 2005 | $12,608 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $16,397 | $13,120 | $18,622 | $21,660 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore riparian function and channel morphology to near natural conditions to reduce sediment and temperature inputs | l. Monitor riparian vegetation planting success rates | 10 | $2,501 | |
| m. Evaluate sediment abatement effectiveness within treated areas. | 10 | $2,501 | ||
| n. Continue temperature monitoring efforts. | Ongoing | $2,812 | ||
| o. Evaluate channel form and condition in response to revegetation and mechanical stabilization if utilized. | Ongoing | $4,098 | ||
| p. Complete monitoring reports | Ongoing | $5,870 | ||
| Objective 4. Long term monitoring and evlaation of watershed, stream, and aquatic condtions. | Completed under umbrella project being proposed as the NPTF/W Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan being sumbitted by NPTF/W. | Ongoing | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore riparian function and channel morphology to near natural conditions to reduce sediment and temperature inputs | 2003 | 2006 | $86,490 |
| Objective 2. Identify and prioritze additional watershed restoration needs within the Little Salmon River Basin. | 2003 | 2006 | $2,702 |
| Objective 3. Implement restoration action list produced upon completion of watershed assesment. | 2005 | 2006 | $11,366 |
| Objective 4. Long term monitoring and evlaation of watershed, stream, and aquatic condtions. Through the NPTF/W Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan being sumbitted by NPTF/W. | 2002 | 0 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $21,402 | $28,283 | $25,278 | $25,591 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.2 and 37 Pay periods for Technician Staff | $79,990 |
| Fringe | Calculated at 30% for non exempt employee & 20% for tax exempt FTE | $12,040 |
| Supplies | Riparian plants, planting supplies, fence building supplies, computer and misc. office supplies. | $19,750 |
| Travel | Includes training line item | $10,786 |
| Indirect | Calculated at 20.9% | $24,260 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: NA | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Fence Supplies and Watershed Analysis Completion | $108,920 |
| Other | Vehicle lease and maintenance costs | $7,150 |
| $262,896 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $262,896 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $262,896 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
New Project Proposal
Reason for change in scope
NA
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boise Cascade | Border fence materials (5 miles | $10,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
Fiscal years 2005 and 2006 contain monies to complete an average of 15 miles of road obliteration and 2 culvert replacements. This work is projected through knowledge of the watershed but may be amended following completion of the watershed assessment to be completed in fiscal year 2002. Upon completion of restoration action list for the Little Salmon River Basin, a more itemized and project specific budget can be completed for FY 2005 and 2006. Additional cost sharing opportunities are expected from ID DFG and BLM but are unsecured as of yet.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The proposal would "partner" with landowner group to improve riparian habitat, and demonstrates good interactive potential between NPT and landowners. Would the 2.5 miles of restored riparian habitat be accessible to the public?The proposal provided inadequate information on fish resources in the immediate project area. Please clarify and discuss how project actions might benefit those populations. Reviewers note that the photos in the proposal of stream restoration in Colorado and Montana were not helpful in evaluating the project.
Because the property is 1 mile above the Little Salmon Creek falls, benefit to anadromous fish is very indirect and a weak case is made for any such benefit. Has restoring passage above the falls been considered by the proposers and is that a future possibility? If so, why is that not being proposed (or addressed) now?
Reviewers concur that some physical monitoring is needed to assess habitat response, but do not agree that physical monitoring can satisfactorily replace fish population monitoring. Please describe an appropriate fish monitoring program that would be part of the project.
Comment:
This project addresses RPA 149 and 154. This project will be implemented above the falls. The goal is to eventually establish anadromous fish populations above the falls where good habitat would have been established through this project. Although no biological monitoring is identified, it has been proposed for this site through Proposal 28045. The existing monitoring appears to be of low intensity and may not be sufficient since it is performed downstream of the implementation. Reviewers expressed concerns that a monitoring plan did not exist for the evaluation of biological characters (e.g., fish presence/absence and abundance). Monitoring of biological characters is important due to the due to the presence of resident fish (e.g., redband trout) at the site of implementation. The sponsors indicated that a plan to monitor biological parameters is currently being developed.Comment:
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:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Will conduct a watershed assessment and seeks to improve water quality by reducing temperature and sediment inputs. Restoration of riparian habitat through fencing and planting is likely to benefit survival although not clear if riparian condition is primary limiting factor in subbasin.
Comments
Identified as a priority subbasin in BiOp and there are not any BPA funded projects in the subbasin, but this project is located above a partial fish barrier that will not be addressed for some time. And, instream flow needs are not addressed, which are probably the principal limiting factor here.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and the need for this project can be properly assessed. We also note that this project is proposed above a passage barrier, which should be addressed before this proposal is considered. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154
Comment:
Council recommendation: The ISRP provided a "fundable in part" recommendation for objective 2 only (i.e. watershed assessment preparation component). The proposal would partner with landowner groups to improve riparian habitat, and demonstrates good interactive potential between NPT and landowners.Bonneville suggests that the project should be deferred until after subbasin plans are complete. NMFS comments note that the project is in a priority subbasin and that the partial barrier to anadromous fish is expected to be remedied in the future. NMFS also notes that the project responds to RPA 154. The Council staff does not believe that this project needs to wait until subbasin planning is completed to begin to take actions to protect riparian area function, as it is likely that a riparian protection strategy will be paramount in any subbasin plan. The funding and actions recommended are those related to protecting the riparian function. The Council believes that the assessment tasks proposed should not be implemented (Objective 2, task b @$100,000) for the reasons addressed in its programmatic funding considerations. The Council recommends that the sponsor consider and address the ISRP's comments about the monitoring and evaluation elements of the project during contracting.
Comment:
Fund only after verification of approval and funding of barrier removal. This will require a letter with specific timelines and funding sources and approval from all affected parties.Comment:
Implementation delay. Realign to start in 2004Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $162,896 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website