FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200003500

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
200003500 Narrative	Narrative
200003500 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
200003500 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	Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed - South Fork Clearwater River
Proposal ID	200003500
Organization	Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Stephanie R. Bransford
Mailing address	P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email	2088422245 / sbransford@fs.fed.us
Manager authorizing this project	Ira Jones
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Protect and enhance Newsome Creek Watershed for the benefit of both resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. This project is a cooperative project between the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest.
Target species	Targeted species include A-run steelhead, Spring Chinook Salmon, and Bull Trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		These lats. and longs. are an overall approximation of the entire watershed.
45.91	-115.63	The Newsome Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 42,576 acres.
		Please see narrative for a more detailed location.

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
1996	Created sediment trap and revegetated Glory Hole Placer Mine.
1989	U.S. Forest Service placed instream structures in Newsome Creek.
1989	U.S. Forest Service removed some of the tailings piles around the Newsome Townsite. This allowed the mainstem channel in that reach to access it's floodplain.
2001	170 miles of roads were surveyed. This was a cooperative effort between the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest.
2001	5.8 miles of road has been slated for decommissioning. NEPA work has been completed, as well as consultation. Contract preparation and implementation are next steps to occur. A cooperative project between NPT and NPNF.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9901600	Protect and Restore Big Canyon Watershed	Cumulative effects for the Clearwater River Subbasin
9607711	Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed	Cumulative effects for the South Fork Clearwater River/Clearwater River Subbasin
9607708	Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed	Cumulative effects for the Clearwater River Subbasin
9607709	Protect and Restore Bear to Fishing Watersheds	Cumulative effects for the Clearwater River Subbasin
9901700	Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed	Cumulative effects for the Clearwater River Subbasin
2008700	Protect and Restore Mill Creek Watershed	Cumulative effects for the South Fork Clearwater River/Clearwater River Subbasin
9706000	Focus Watershed Coordinator	Coordinate efforts between NPT and other agencies (Forest Service, etc.)
9608600	Clearwater Watershed Coordinator - Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District	Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin
8335000	Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery	Watershed protection and restoration for anadromous fish
9600600	Clearwater Watershed Coordinator - Nez Perce Tribe	Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Complete a Watershed Assesment (Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale EAWS) in order to prioritize needed restoration projects within the watershed.	Review and finalize Newsome EAWS and the transportation plan for the watershed.	1	$10,000
Alleviate sediment input and potential from road sources.	Consult with Forest Service on 20 miles of road decommissioning/road improvements.	4	$35,703
	Perform all necessary pre-work (NEPA, consultation, permits, etc.)	4	$65,000
	Perform all pre-work training, equipment needs, logistics internally and with the Nez Perce National Forest.	4	$35,703
Design rehabilitation for the upper channel reaches of Newsome Creek affected by past dredge mining	Subcontract to complete feasibility study on channel restructuring/realignment.	1	$40,000	Yes
Improve Fish Passage and alleviate potential culvert problems.	Inventory culverts and stream crossings within the Newsome Watershed.	1	$33,852
	Evaluate culverts/crossings for potential problems and design new passages to alleviate these problems.	4	$45,468
Disseminate information about work in the watershed.	Consult and update project specific Cost Share Agreements with the Nez Perce National Forest.	4	$5,275
	Write quarterly and annual reports	4	$5,728
	Consult, prepare, and deliver presentations to peers and public	4	$5,275
	Write proposals/statements of work for future project years.	4	$5,728

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Alleviate sediment input and potential input from road sources.	2003	2006	$174,789
Improve fish passage and alleviate potential culvert problems.	2003	2006	$174,789
Disseminate information about work in the watershed.	2003	2006	$45,173
Design rehabilitation for the upper channel reaches affected by past dredge mining.	2003	2003	$96,257

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$250,761	$155,294	$27,520	$57,433

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
Alleviate sediment input and potential from road sources (Road decomissioning/road improvements).	2003	2006	$722,821
Implement rehabilitation design for the upper channel reaches affected by past dredge mining.	2004	2006	$285,098
Improve Fish Passage and alleviate potential culvert problems (Replace designated culverts/crossings).	2004	2006	$577,567

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$180,253	$540,294	$442,640	$422,299

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
Perform monitoring and evaluation of road decommissioning/road improvements.	2004	2006	$43,000
Monitoring and evaluation of channel restructuring/realignment project.	2005	2006	$34,000
Monitoring and evaluation of new culverts/crossings.	2005	2006	$33,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$10,000	$50,000	$50,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: Project Leader, Project Assistant	$102,465
Fringe		$28,405
Supplies		$2,900
Travel	Rosgen and misc. training, field per diem	$10,720
Indirect		$32,368
Capital	Bunkhouse rent, ATV, GPS unit	$11,700
NEPA		$50,000
Subcontractor		$28,789
Other	Vehicle Lease, complete EAWS,	$20,385
		$287,732

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$287,732
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$287,732
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Nez Perce National Forest	NEPA team participation, design and contract preparation, and implementation (see narrative description, page 14)	$450,000	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 road decommissioning and culvert remedy project that includes possible stream channel restructuring to remedy dredge mining damage. The latter objective is laudably planned to be abandoned if a feasibility study shows that option to be warranted. The proposal is extremely well written, so logically organized and clearly put that it made review a pleasure. A major additional need in project design is for all of the activities to be explicitly coordinated with the NPTH M&E project to monitor habitat and fish response. The channel modification study, plan, and site should be independently reviewed by a team of geomorphologists before it is decided what to do.

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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Completion of the watershed assessment should be prioritized. Partially addresses RPA 154.

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

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The proposal was extremely well written, so logically organized and clearly put that it made review a pleasure. The writing should serve as an example to others. Responses to ISRP comments were adequate except on the M & E issue. This is a road decommissioning and culvert remedy project that includes possible stream channel restructuring to remedy dredge mining damage. The latter objective is laudably planned to be abandoned if feasibility study shows it to be warranted. Nevertheless, the Council should look at budget carefully; 1.4M for the channel work seems excessive. Logically, funding cannot be estimated until study and planning are done.

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.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. This is largely an FY2002 assessment and planning proposal. If successful, resultant actions are likely to increase survival through improvement of habitat quality and passage through culvert replacement and the reduction of sediment through the obliteration of roads

Comments
A portion of the funding for this project will go towards the completion of a watershed assessment, but it is not clear how much this proposal will contribute to this assessment, which already exists in draft.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
B

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

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:
154

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

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%.

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.

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%.

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.

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%.

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.

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%.

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.

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 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.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jul 11, 2002

Comment:

Fund

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

On track. Increase percentage increase, COLA, etc.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

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:
$307,630	$307,630	$307,630

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website