FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200003600

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
200003600 Narrative	Narrative
200003600 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
200003600 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	Protect & Restore Mill Creek
Proposal ID	200003600
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	Enhance critical riparian areas thru re-vegetation and maintaining the cattle exclusion fence, and replacing/repairing culverts which pose a fish/aquatic barrier to restore quality habitat for chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and resident fish.
Target species	Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, pacific lamprey, westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.76	-115.98	Mill Creek, tributary to the South Fork Clearwater River, Idaho County, 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
2000	Construction of two miles of riparian/stream protection/cattle exclusion fence
2000	Installation of monitoring stations
2001	Construction of 1 mile of cattle exclusion fence

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
9607705	Meadow Creek Watershed Restoration	Watershed restoration: riparian re-vegetation, road decommissioning, streambank stabilization
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	$2,451
1.	b. Consult with the NPNF, USFWS, and NMFS on any NEPA, ESA consultation or permits needed.	1	$53,905	Yes
1.	c. Consult with SHPO and NPT on any cultural/historic sites.	1	$4,451
2. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat.	a. Evaluate re-vegetation plan.	on-going	$2,076
3. Return passage to inaccessible tributary habitat and alleviate sediment sources associated with culverts.	a. Identify culverts to be surveyed through cooperation with the Nez Perce National Forest.		$2,076

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Coordinate with agencies on pre-work, planning and logistics.	2003	2006	$49,100
2. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat.	2003	2006	$9,450
3. Return passage to inaccessible tributary habitat and alleviate sediment sources associated with culverts.	2003	2006	$41,450

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$23,775	$24,565	$25,395	$26,265

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat.	a. Purchase/gather vegetation for planting.	on-going	$6,303
1.	b. Plant vegetation.	on-going	$2,918
2. Return passage to inaccessible tributary habitat and alleviate sediment sources associated with culverts.	a. Inventory identified culverts for fish passage and sediment problems.	on-going	$10,597
2.	b. Survey identified culverts to be replaced.	on-going	$9,364	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat.	2003	2006	$39,950
2. Return passage to inaccessible tributary habitat and alleviate sediment sources associated with culverts.	2003	2006	$576,205

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$144,395	$150,615	$157,145	$164,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Protect riparian habitat as it provides critical habitat for fish and wildlife.	a. Maintain cattle exclosure fence through repair of any damaged or destroyed sections of fence.	on-going	$6,338

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Protect riparian habitat as it provides critical habitat for fish and wildlife.	2003	2006	$24,828
2. Return passage to inaccessible tributary habitat and alleviate sediment sources associated with culverts.	2003	2006	$22,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$11,188	$11,523	$11,875	$12,242

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 determine future needs based on these results.	a. Implement Mill Creek Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring Plan to determine trend in habitat conditions as a result of restoration projects.	on-going	$5,081

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 culvert replacements) and determine future needs based on these results.	2003	2006	$23,005

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$5,360	$5,530	$5,910	$6,205

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel		$17,150
Fringe	30% permanent, non-tax exempt 20% permanent, tax exempt 15% temp, non tax-exempt 5% temp, tax exempt	$3,880
Supplies	woody vegetation, fence materials	$6,200
Travel		$7,973
Indirect	20.9%	$7,357
Capital		$0
NEPA		$50,000
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor	Archaeological Survey, Culvert Design	$7,000
Other	4-wheeler	$6,000
		$105,560

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$105,560
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$105,560
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$102,050
% change from forecast	3.4%

Reason for change in estimated budget

No significant change.

Reason for change in scope

N/A

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 ).	$30,000	in-kind

Other budget explanation

Implementation of culvert replacement/repair will occur in 2003 thru 2006.

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:

Response needed. This is basic habitat management and protection, with a little rehabilitation to correct bad practices of the past, but it does not seem to be led by a thorough condition assessment and prescription.

As with Project 199607702, how many stream miles have been directly benefited by the project since 1996, will be in FY 2002, and are anticipated to be during the projected rest of the project life? And, of what does the consultation in Tasks 1b consist? "Consult" seems a vague term (talk with some people?); the cost of $53,900 for it seems high.

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/ Recommended Action

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Completion of the watershed assessment should be prioritized. CBFWA supports the continuation of O&M and M&E for this project. These tasks should be considered High Priority. The results of the EAWS developed through this project should guide any future work. Until that assessment is completed, implementation activities should be considered Recommended Action.

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

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The project is basic habitat management and protection, with a little rehabilitation to correct bad practices of the past. It focuses on riparian exclusion of cattle, on revegetation, and on remedying culverts that block fish passage. This proposal marginally met the review criteria and received a fundable primarily because of the focus of restoration activities on well accepted methods that will likely provide fish benefits. Also, the response did refer to a larger-scale "landscape assessment" that identified Mill Creek as a high priority for restoration and specified the types of work being done. Beyond that, a fish passage assessment will be done for the creek to guide culvert work. Thus, the project does not appear to be based on a watershed assessment at a detailed enough scale. The M&E plan should also be bolstered, and coordinated with the overall subbasin effort in this regard. The response indicates that this will be done. 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
Indirect benefit through culvert assessment. Likely increased survival through improvement of habitat quality and passage through culvert replacement and re-vegetation of riparian areas if actions implemented.

Comments
Completed assessment will address passage problems and opportunities, but not in a priority subbasin as identified by the BiOp and All Hs paper. 50% of fund request is meant to cover consultation with Federal Agencies on NEPA, ESA, and permits. 20% of funds will be used to identify and survey problem culverts. Only 6% ($6200) of funds are allocated to on the ground work, i.e., protect riparian areas, and that is allocated to purchase fencing materials and woody material.

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:
500

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:
$80,096	$80,096	$80,096

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website