FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199607705
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 |
---|---|
199607705 Narrative | Narrative |
199607705 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
199607705 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Mountain Snake: Clearwater Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Mountain Snake: Clearwater Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed |
Proposal ID | 199607705 |
Organization | Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program (NPT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Heidi Mcroberts |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
Phone / email | 2088437144 / heidim@nezperce.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Ira Jones |
Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
Short description | Protect and restore critical riparian/stream habitat in Meadow Creek thru streambank stabilization, riparian re-vegetation, road decommissioning, culvert repalcement/repair, and native plant restoration. |
Target species | Steelhead Trout, Spring Chinook Salmon, Westslope Cutthroat Trout, Bull Trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
45.88 | -115.92 | Meadow Creek, tributary to South Fork Clearwater River, 7 miles east of Grangeveille, Idaho |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Habitat RPA Action 149 |
Habitat RPA Action 150 |
Habitat RPA Action 153 |
RM&E RPA Action 183 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1996 | Salmon Corps removes 4 miles of posts, rails, and barbed wire fence |
1997 | Construct 3.0 miles of riparian/meadow protection fence |
1998 | Construct 0.5 miles of riparian/meadow protection fence |
1998 | Installation of water table wells for groundwater monitoring |
1999 | Installation of automatic temperature recorders, gaging station, and data collection |
2000 | Re-vegetation (5,000 trees planted) |
2000 | Intense monitoring (channel morphology, stream discharge, temperature, water table level, riparian regeneration) |
2001 | Re-vegetation (2,500 trees planted) |
2001 | Tributary channel relocation (PLANNED) |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
9700601 | Clearwater River Subbasin Watershed Assessment | Watershed assessment at the subbasin scale (Clearwater River) |
9706000 | Clearwater River Subbasin Focus Watershed Program (NPT) | Cooperative project to coordinate watershed activities within the Clearwater River Subbasin |
9608600 | Clearwater River Subbasin Focus Watershed Program (ISCC) | Cooperative project to coordinate watershed activities within the Clearwater River Subbasin |
2008600 | Newsome Creek Watershed Restoration | Watershed restoration: road decommissioning, channel restoration |
2000360 | Mill Creek Watershed Restoration | Watershed restoration: fencing/ cattle exclusion, riparian re-vegetation, culvert repair/replacement |
9303501 | Red River Watershed Restoration | Watershed restoration: channel relocation and riparian restoration |
8335003 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation | Evaluation of effectiveness of supplementation: snorkeling and redd counts |
8335000 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery | Hatchery supplementation to restore and recover Snake River Basin salmon stocks |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Coordinate with agencies on pre-work, planning and logistics. | a. Coordinate with NPNF on pre-work, planning, and logistics through the Master Challenge Cost Share Agreement. | on-going | $4,141 | |
1. | b. Consult with the NPNF, USFWS, and NMFS on any NEPA, ESA consultation or permits needed. | on-going | $36,606 | |
1. | c. Conduct surveys and consult with SHPO and NPT on any cultural/historic sites. | on-going | $6,805 | Yes |
1. | d. Conduct pre-work surveys for TES plants and weeds. | on-going | $10,141 | Yes |
1. | e. Develop protection, avoidance, or abatement plans for TES plants, weeds, and heritage resources. | on-going | $5,512 | Yes |
2. Restore hydrologic connectivity within the Meadow Creek area of McComas Meadows | a. Survey & complete design for tributary restoration and ditch re-contouring. | 1 | $9,821 | Yes |
3. Restore fish passage | a. Survey & complete design for culvert replacements. | on-going | $6,420 | |
4. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. | a. Inventory riparian and upland vegetation. | on-going | $6,249 | Yes |
4. | b. Develop McComas Meadows Native Species Restoration Plan. | 1 | $1,000 | Yes |
5. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from un-stable stream banks, improve water quality, and improve stream habitat. | a. Survey and complete design for streambank stabilization. | on-going | $8,420 | Yes |
6. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from the Fisher Placer Mine Site. | a. Coordinate with private landowner on logistics for mine stabilization. | on-going | $4,141 | |
6. | b. Complete design for sediment abatement at Fisher Placer Mine Site. | 1 | $9,638 | Yes |
7. Alleviate sediment input to the stream and reduce risk from sediment related mass wasting and surface erosion related to road sources. | a. Coordinate with NPNF on treatment prescriptions for identified roads. | 1 | $3,805 | |
8. Dissemination of project information and peer review. | a. Complete quarterly and end of year reports as they become due. | on-going | $8,747 | |
8. | b. Perform necessary presentations to the public and project peers. | on-going | $5,211 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Coordinate with agencies on pre-work, planning and logistics. | 2003 | 2006 | $102,060 |
2. Restore hydrologic connectivity within the Meadow Creek area of McComas Meadows | 2003 | 2006 | $59,148 |
3. Restore fish passage | 2003 | 2006 | $23,054 |
4. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. | 2003 | 2006 | $14,643 |
5. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from un-stable stream banks, improve water quality, and improve stream habitat. | 2003 | 2006 | $38,106 |
6. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from the Fisher Placer Mine Site. | 2003 | 2006 | $18,740 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$60,743 | $63,730 | $66,959 | $69,817 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Restore hydrologic connectivity within the Meadow Creek area of McComas Meadows. | a. Gather/obtain materials for stream channel/ditch restoration. | on-going | $7,000 | |
1. | b. Re-locate tributary channels to their natural condition. | on-going | $32,716 | Yes |
1. | c. Re-contour irrigation ditch/Whitman home site road to facilitate drainage within McComas Meadows. | on-going | $17,716 | Yes |
2. Restore fish passage. | a. Replace culverts according to design specifications. | on-going | $126,396 | Yes |
3. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. | a. Obtain materials and supples including seed and plants to implement restoration plan. | on-going | $12,980 | Yes |
3. | b. Implement exotic species reduction and native species restoration. | on-going | $8,697 | Yes |
3. | c. Plant vegetation. | on-going | $8,321 | |
4. Alleviate sediment input to the stream and reduce risk from sediment related mass wasting and surface erosion related to road sources. | a. Survey 20 miles of roads identified for treatment. | 1 | $6,396 | |
4. | b. Obliterate/treat 20 miles of identified and surveyed roads. | 1 | $190,254 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Restore hydrologic connectivity within the Meadow Creek area of McComas Meadows. | 2003 | 2006 | $84,044 |
2. Restore fish passage. | 2003 | 2006 | $568,983 |
3. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. | 2003 | 2006 | $96,450 |
4. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from un-stable stream banks, improve water quality, and improve stream habitat. | 2003 | 2006 | $211,023 |
5. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from the Fisher Placer Mine Site. | 2003 | 2006 | $100,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$228,310 | $217,527 | $249,204 | $260,415 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from un-stable stream banks, improve water quality, and improve stream habitat. | a. Evaluate previously implemented restored and enhanced sites and conduct maintenance, such as re-vegetation, in needed areas. | on-going | $4,890 | |
2. Maintain cattle exclosure fences | a. Repair an damaged or destroyed sections of fence. | on-going | $6,671 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Reduce sediment delivery to the stream from un-stable stream banks, improve water quality, and improve stream habitat. | 2003 | 2006 | $21,516 |
2. Maintain cattle exclosure fences. | 2003 | 2006 | $29,352 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$11,034 | $12,015 | $13,432 | $14,387 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor and evaluate success of implementation projects (i.e. cattle exclusion, re-vegetation, streambank stabilization, and road obliteration) and determine future needs based on these results. | a. Implement McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring Plan to determine trend in habitat condtions as a result of restoration projects. | on-going | $17,851 | |
1. | a. Implement Road Obliteration Effectiveness Monitoring Plan. | on-going | $7,287 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Monitor and evaluate success of implementation projects (i.e. cattle exclusion, re-vegetation, streambank stabilization, and road obliteration) and determine future needs based on these results. | 2003 | 2006 | $113,765 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$26,395 | $27,715 | $29,100 | $30,555 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 3 | $111,600 |
Fringe | permanent, taxed 30% permanent, tax exempt 20% temporary, taxed 15% | $28,106 |
Supplies | vegetation, erosion control supplies, fence posts, monitoring equipment | $9,680 |
Travel | $25,000 | |
Indirect | 20.9% | $36,446 |
NEPA | streambank stabilization | $25,000 |
Subcontractor | heavy equipment, geotechnical specialist, herbicide treatment, vegetation surveys, restoration plan | $338,000 |
$573,832 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $573,832 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $573,832 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $132,050 |
% change from forecast | 334.6% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
The Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) was completed by the US Forest Service, and recommendations for restoration, based on this document, were developed by the Stewards of the Nez Perce National Forest. The restoration needed in this watershed is substantial, and this proposal address just a portion of the identified needed restoration.
Reason for change in scope
The Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) was completed by the US Forest Service, and recommendations for restoration, based on this document, were developed by the Stewards of the Nez Perce National Forest. The restoration needed in this watershed is substantial, and this proposal address just a portion of the identified needed restoration. Restoration in this watershed will improve aquatic conditions in the watershed itself as well as the South Fork Clearwater River, which is listed on the 303d water quality limited list.
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
Nez Perce National Forest | Design & field preparation, and implementation (see narrative description, project history section). | $750,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Out-year budgets estimates include similar work as in 2002, although road obliteration is only proposed for 2002, not for 2003 and beyond.
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:
Response needed. All of these should be better tied to the NPTH M and E project to monitor fish response. See 199706000 and 199608600. How many miles of stream has this project benefited? How many stream miles will be benefited by the time the project is finished?General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages ("tiers") are provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project 199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and other entities' monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.
Comment:
This project addresses RPA 500. The implementation activities for this project are guided by a completed watershed assessment.Comment:
Fundable but adequacy of M and E is tied into ability of project 28045 to develop a sound monitoring plan. They did not clearly define the experimental design for monitoring and evaluation, but, like others, referred to the NPT M&E plan, which is dominated by supplementation evaluation and not habitat rehabilitation effectiveness, or a mix of several treatments in some of the subbasins. It is unclear how these will be separated in the analysis. Although M and E linkages ("tiers") are provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project 199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. There is a need to describe clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and other entities' monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. Project 28045, to which the response referred, does not indicate a clear treatment-control approach to evaluation of projects like 199607705. Snorkel counts for recruits based on parr density or redd counts do not represent adequate response variables for this type of work unless adjusted for density dependence and based as a function of spawner density. There is no clear indication of success from past efforts, which should be complete by now.To assist in establishing 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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESULikely increase in survival as a result of improvement of habitat through road obliteration, culvert replacement and other restoration activities.
Comments
Project is based on an ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale (EAWS) - Meadow Creek is identified as an important focus for restoration of aquatic processes but it is not in a priority subbasin per the All H paper. But this project, too, has been ongoing in 1996 and substantial money has already been spent in the meadow. It's time to reevaluate this project.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend not funding at this time. This project should wait until it is reviewed under BPA's policy for funding habitat projects on federal lands. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
500
Comment:
Council recommendation: The Bonneville comments on each of these ongoing Nez Perce tribe habitat projects [199607702; 199607703; 19960705; 200003400; 200003500; 200003600] did not support funding until they are reviewed in light of Bonneville's draft proposed interim policy for funding projects on federally owned land. If this review is not done right away, given that each of these projects are ongoing projects, the Bonneville comment could amount to a defunding recommendation. Defunding these ongoing projects that were rated as "fundable" by the ISRP and which also remain a priority of the local fish and wildlife managers and interested parties is contrary to two of the general Council approved funding principles (protect the past investment of ongoing projects that have ISRP support; support projects that are supported and coordinated locally). These projects are also responding to the ESA needs outlined in the Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan, and are a priority under the Council general funding considerations. The Council does not believe that the Bonneville comments should be understood as defunding recommendations. Rather, given the timing of its release, and the lack of notice to project sponsors of the substance of this draft proposed interim policy, the Council believes that these projects should be supported by Bonneville if they demonstrate responsiveness to its primary principles.For the reasons discussed in the programmatic policy issue regarding draft Bonneville policy, the Council will not accept and use Bonneville's draft policy in a dispositive manner, as written, in making its recommendations on these projects. However, the Council does believe that it is enlightening to do a project-by-project review of the projects on two points: (1) cost-sharing; and (2) connections or relatedness of the habitat work to other Bonneville investments. The Council believes that this would be informative because notwithstanding the rather cumbersome and complex multiple sets of criteria in the proposed Bonneville policy, the issues of cost-share and relationship to other Bonneville investments seem to be the key points. The Council believes that evaluating these projects relative to those two main points is responsive to Bonneville's comments and, depending on the results, should be sufficient to allow these projects to proceed as the Council, Bonneville, and public further discuss the draft interim policy.
- 199607702 - Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed: The project is on 50% private and 50% federal land. The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $370,000 matched with an FY 02 request of $221,013 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 62%.
- 199607703 - Protect and Restore Waw'aatamnima Creek to 'Imnaamatoon Creek Watersheds Analysis Area: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $365,000 matched with an FY02 request of $413,000 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 47%.
- 199607705 - Restore McComas Meadows: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $722,000 matched with an FY02 request of $332,000 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 70%.
-
The sponsor has provided detailed information showing that the proposed work builds upon substantial past Bonneville investments including habitat restoration, research, and artificial production actions. The stream is used for varied supplementation initiatives of the Nez Perce tribe, such as out-planting Lower Snake River Compensation Program fish (BPA-funded). The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.
- 200003400 - Protect and Restore North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $219,000 matched with an FY02 request of $182,507 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 55%.
- 200003500 - Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed (S.F. Clearwater R.): The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $ 136,000 matched with an FY02 request of $287,732 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 32%.
- 200003600 - Protect and Restore Mill Creek: The sponsor reports a proposed federal cost-share for FY 02 of $ 45,000 matched with an FY02 request of $ 74,915 in Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate non-Bonneville cost-share of 38 %.
The sponsor has presented detailed information that shows significant past Bonneville investment in the project area, including habitat work, research, and Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery components. The watershed has also received out-plantings from the Lower Snake River Compensation Program (BPA funded). The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.
The sponsor has provided detailed information that demonstrates that Bonneville has invested over $15 million in the project area for actions that include habitat restoration, passage work, research, and artificial production that this proposed work builds upon. The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.
The sponsor has provided detailed information showing how the proposed work builds upon substantial past Bonneville investments in the project area for habitat work, passage, and research. The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.
The sponsor has provided detailed information showing how the proposed work builds on past Bonneville investments in the project area for habitat restoration, research, and out-planting for Bonneville funded Lower Snake River Compensation Program (BPA funded) fish. The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.
The sponsor has provided detailed information showing how the propose work relates to and builds upon past Bonneville investments. Bonneville has funded habitat restoration and monitoring work, and the watershed is involved in Nez Perce Tribe and Lower Snake River Compensation Program production initiatives (both BPA funded). The Action Agency 2002 Implementation Plan identifies this project as one of the habitat projects that will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2002 to address habitat elements of the off-site mitigation component of the Biological Opinion.
Four of the projects budgets are held to the general rule of a 3.4% increase to the Council's Fiscal Year 2001 recommended budgets. Project 199607705 is recommended to receive a substantial increase. The watershed scale assessment has been completed for this project, and the additional funding is recommended to move to the next logical and planned step, which is to implement the restoration strategies in light of the assessment. Project 200003500 has a substantial budget decrease from the Fiscal Year 2001 approved amount, and the Council recommends that lower amount. See Table 1 for all of the budget impact specifics. The Council recommends that the sponsor and Bonneville document, as a condition of contracting, how the sponsors will monitor and report on the effectiveness of these activities.
Comment:
Fund. Meets requirements under BPA's draft policy for funding on Federal lands.Comment:
On track.Comment:
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: |
$320,987 | $320,987 | $320,987 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website