FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199706000

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
199706000 Narrative	Narrative
199706000 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
199706000 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	Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - NPT
Proposal ID	199706000
Organization	Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ira Jones
Mailing address	P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, Idaho 83540
Phone / email	2088437144 / iraj@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project	Ira Jones
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Manage and implement a comprehensive system to coordinate multiple jurisdictions, agencies, and private landowners within the Clearwater River Subbasin. These efforts will protect, restore, and enhance anadromous fisheries habitat.
Target species	All species in the Ceded lands of the Nez Perce Tribe entitled under the treaty of 1855.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.44	-115.65	Clearwater subbasin

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
NMFS	Action 152	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following:
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
1996	Coordinate Salmon Corps to remove six miles of barb-wire and rail fence
1996	Coordinate Salmon Corps to stabilize landslide.
1997	Coordinate with Clearwater and Nez Perce National forests to develop Cost-Share Agreements/Memorandum of Understanding
1997	Coordinate with Clearwater National Forest (CNF) to plan/implement road obliteration within the Squaw, Papoose, and Lolo Creek Watersheds
1997	Coordinate with CNF to design/construct riparian/meadow protection fence.
1997	Coordinate with Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) to design/construct riparian/meadow protection fence.
1998	Coordinate with CNF, Potlatch Corporation, Idaho Dept. of Lands, and private grazing permittees to develop a Challenge Cost Share Agreement.
1998	Coordinate with the above stated agencies to design/implement construction of riparian protection fence.
1998	Co-coordinated the Clearwater River Subbasin Project Review meeting -Lewiston, ID 3/1/98
1998	Coordinate with consultant and contractor to install two cattle guards and one off-site watering development for cattle in the uplands.
1998	Coordinate with NPNF to install water table wells in McComas Meadows to monitor the groundwater levels associated with meadow/wetland rehabilitation.
1998	Monitoring of fence construction to ensure over-winter survival and to repair human impacts.
1999	Co-coordinated the organization of the Clearwater Policy Advisory Committee and provided administrative structure
2000	Prepared/received contract amendments to co-coordination contract and implementation contracts to use portion of funding for subassin assessment and explicitly include assessment functions in co-coordination budget.
2000	1998/1999 Prepared and implemented contract with WSU for subbasin assessment to develop conceptual framework assessment, implementation plan, and a plan for monitoring/evaluation for Clearwater Subbasin. The targeted completion date is the fall of 2001.
2000	Chief of the Forest Service Rise to the Future National Award for Collabrative Aquatic Restoration.
2001	Completed final draft of Clearwater Subbasin Summary.
2001	Completed draft plan for monitoring and evaluation plus facilitated the finalization of subbasin assessment. Facilitated the preparation of Ecosystem Assessments at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) proposals for several Clearwater watersheds.
2001	Co-coordinate terrestrail committee to add terrestrail component to Clearwater Assessment.
2001	Complete Lapwai and Big Canyon Assessments
2001	Managed all projects listed in the narrative section of this proposal.
2001	Coordinated with the Clearwater National Forest in the development and finalization of a Master Challenge Cost Share Agreement.
2001	Coordinated the development of a NOAA grant that was funded for $50,000.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Coordinate watershed project development within the 1855-treaty territory of the Nez Perce Tribe among federal, state, and local government agencies and private landowners in cooperation with the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Focus Program.	a. Coordinate Clearwater River subbasin watershed projects prioritization and planning between the US Forest Service, BLM, BIA, NMFS, NRCS, USFWS, ISCC, IDL, IDFG, IDEQ, conservation districts, private industry, and landowners.	1 FY/ongoing	$12,000
	b. Coordinate and provide administrative structure for Clearwater Policy Advisory Committee (PAC).		$0
	c. Provide direction for EcoPacific, Inc. in the development of the Clearwater Subbasin Assessment, Subbasin Plan, and the Monitoring/Evaluation Plan.	1 FY/ongoing	$100,000	Yes
2. Manage development of Clearwater Subbasin Restoration Program, including the assessment, subbasin plan, EAWS and the monitoring and evaluation plan.	a. Oversee and provide leadership to EcoPacific, Inc. in the development and implementation of objective #2. Provide leadership and facilitate the updating of the databases for the Clearwater Subbasin Assessment.	1 FY/ongoing	$90,000
3. Pursue additional funding sources to cost-share in future project implementation	a. Facilitate interagency project funding participation.	ongoing	$5,000
	b. Identify additional funding agencies for habitat restoration projects.	ongoing	$5,000
4. Reporting	a. Prepare and submit quarterly progress reports.	1 FY/ongoing	$6,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Coordinate watershed project development within the 1855-treaty territory of the Nez Perce Tribe among federal, state, and local government agencies and private landowners in cooperation with the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Focus Program.	2002	2006	$0
2. Manage development of Clearwater Subbasin Restoration Program, including the assessment, subbasin plan, EAWS and the monitoring and evaluation plan.	2002	2006	$0
3. Pursue additional funding sources to cost-share in future project implementation	2002	2006	$0
4. Reporting	2002	2006	$0

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$233,000	$251,000	$275,000	$285,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

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

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	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 27 pay periods @ $1975.18	$53,329
Fringe		$7,466
Supplies	office, postage, advertising, public meetings, workshops, publishing, monitoring equipment	$2,000
Travel	Out of basin travel	$12,556
Indirect	@20.9%	$15,748
Subcontractor	EcoPacific	$100,000
Other	Vehicle and phones	$26,901
		$218,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$218,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$218,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$218,000
% 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.

Complete all watershed assessments according to standard protocols and format and clearly define methods, with references.
Indicate the project connection to the monitoring and evaluation plan at the subbasin scale.

These are similar comments to the previous review, although evidence of a cooperative approach was strong and team players appear effective in focusing restoration approaches - there is much of that to do. Help from a contract biometrician must be obtained in planning the overall M&E as well as stock assessment work. This project and 199608600 represent the management structure for coordination of projects within the Clearwater sub-basin. Listing projects by type reveals the following:

Project type	Number
Management	2
assessment	5
Hatchery	10	6 are for M&E, supplementation
Habitat	25	19 are rehabilitation, including 3 BMPs

The proposed stock assessment projects include harvest monitoring, and the distribution and status of bull trout, Pacific lamprey, A-run steelhead, and westslope cutthroat. As a stock assessment plan, it appears limited in scope. A Sub-Basin assessment plan that focuses on ecosystem structure and function with fish as the primary indicator of ecosystem health is recommended. The Subbasin Summaries provide the trend information available. The Focus Group(s) must utilize that information to improve upon an assessment plan. It will require monitoring of key indicator stocks for trends in abundance, distribution, and survival. It does not require measuring all things in all places. Survival status must include both freshwater and marine life stages of salmonids. The stock status and recruitment information becomes the guide for prioritization of management decisions on harvest, as well as projects on hatchery programs and habitat rehabilitation. Develop a stock-status-based framework for management decisions, reviewed and approved by the management agencies involved. Hatchery and habitat projects must now be treated as management experiments. Thus, projects must contain a connection to a monitoring and evaluation plan. Please refer to ISRP comments contained within habitat rehabilitation projects within this set in the Clearwater, but also those provided in ISRP reviews over the last 3 years, in all sub-basins. Within the Clearwater, consider the list of habitat projects and select treatment and control sites (preferably at random, but this is seldom logistically possibly to subsequently implement in the field). Smolt yield is the recommended response variable for effectiveness monitoring at the watershed scale. Response monitoring within individual projects might rely on other means to assess trends in habitat character or fish presence/absence and utilization, such as, for example, stream temperature (if that was identified as the limiting factor), or by electrofishing or snorkeling in upstream controls and treated areas. Some projects suggested sampling within all trophic levels, or a detailed process-oriented modeling approach. Rarely is that level of investigation relevant, other than in research-level studies. The task of the Focus Group must include coordination of monitoring and evaluation within the basin, with recommendations for the level required in each project. Habitat rehabilitation projects must be indicate their order of importance. An independent review team has difficulty in recommending projects without a clear indication of what local managers consider to be the key problems and solutions. The Focus Group needs to report on or develop a process of setting priority to watershed assessment and rehabilitation plans, and convey this message to reviewers. The other tool that has been proposed to assist the fish populations of the Clearwater Sub-Basin is hatchery production. There are arguments for and against this approach, but central to this debate is an evaluation of its effectiveness as a tool in protecting or enhancing wild production in listed or threatened stocks. Thus, the same control and treatment approach at the watershed scale and with wild smolt monitoring is required. Most hatchery plans are for supplementation (also called intervention) work. The Focus Group must carefully weigh the advantages of these short-term projects (or what should be only short term, i.e. one generation, if truly supplementation) and the interaction of that work with habitat rehabilitation work. Will they increased benefits in wild smolt yield that will hopefully be measured at treated (habitat rehabilitation) sites be distinguishable from the effects of supplementation (if indeed there are positive benefits to wild fish by supplementation as proposed)? Currently, a confusing set of monitoring and evaluation projects is proposed to assess supplementation. What does the Focus Group recommend, and why? We are suggesting in the above that the Focus Group play a larger role in subbasin decision making and planning. We do this based on the abilities that were displayed in their project proposals, field tour, and presentations, that suggested a strong potential exists. If the group cannot adequately perform the coordinating role suggested in the above towards recommendations and priorities for habitat rehabilitation, hatchery projects, and M&E, then please more clearly explain what the Focus Group means by "comprehensively coordinate multiple agencies", and suggest where that coordinated approach we suggest is provided otherwise. In other words, if not you, then who?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

This project coordinates assessment and implementation activities in the Clearwater subbasin. The project does not fit the criteria well since most of the implementation activities that are coordinated by this project are implemented through other projects. This project addresses RPA 152 and 154.

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

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable, but they need to raise their level of effort in coordinating assessments, prescriptions, rehabilitation works, and particularly in monitoring and evaluation. The PAC has broad membership and could be a lead in the Subbasin Planning effort, including M&E, which is missing here. This project should demonstrate performance by the next review cycle otherwise it should be terminated. Help from a contract biometrician must be obtained in planning the overall M&E as well as stock assessment work.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. The objectives of this proposal are too plan, coordinate and prioritize restoration actions and projects in the Clearwater Basin. This project will have indirect effects on survival by improving ecosystem function.

Comments
Here is another $350K for planning and focus of watershed efforts in the lower Clearwater. This group should be doing more to focus and prioritize the projects in the Clearwater subbasin.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A Conditional

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend funding consistent with Council's subbasin planning process and as implementation of RPA 154. BPA recommends not funding the subbasin assessment part of this project because it is a duplication of the Council's subbasin planning process.

BPA RPA RPM:
154

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
152, 154

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council recommendation: This is primarily a coordination project that guides the Nez Perce habitat protection and restoration implementation related efforts in the Clearwater and also coordinates those with related state efforts. This is an ongoing project rated as fundable and it continues to be a priority within the province group. The Council expects that the functions performed through this contract will be very valuable in the upcoming subbasin planning exercise (the same is true for the state companion project). All of these factors support funding the proposal at the general Fiscal Year 2001 plus 3.4% level.

The sole issue to be addressed comes from Bonneville's comments that note that watershed assessment activities should perhaps not be funded at this time. The Council does not concur with the Bonneville comment to eliminate watershed assessment funding in this particular instance. This is not a new assessment effort. The funding and actions proposed are to complete an assessment that was previously approved by a specific Council action with Bonneville concurrence. (There were implementation task funds in several projects reprogrammed to complete this assessment). The Council believes that the assessment tasks proposed should be completed to maximize past investment, position for subbasin planning, and respond to RPAs 152 and 154 (the last point based on NMFS and Bonneville comments). The Council recommends that the sponsor consider the ISRP's comments about coordinating the monitoring and evaluation elements of the projects that are coordinated under this project, and the suggestion about enlisting the expertise of a biometrician in doing so.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund consistent with Council's subbasin planning process and as implementation of RPA 154.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

2003 - funds moved ($90,836) to project #200206800. Scope maintained. Need to document change formally. Follow up needed for 04.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

The $90,000 that was transferred to Project # 200206800 in 2003, was a one time occurrence, so in 2004, it stays in this project budget.

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:
$233,076	$140,000	$140,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website