FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28043

Additional documents

TitleType
28043 Narrative Narrative
28043 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28043 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCrooked River Ecosystem Assessment at the Watershed Scale
Proposal ID28043
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameCraig Rabe
Mailing addressPO Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437144 / cdrabe@pullman.com
Manager authorizing this projectIra Jones
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionAssess watershed conditions and develop and prioritize watershed restoration activities
Target speciesSpring/Summer Chinook, Steelhead trout, bull trout, pacific lamprey, cutthroat trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.8241 -115.5291 Crooked River joins the South Fork, Clearwater River (SFCR) some 59.5 miles upstream of the mouth at Kooskia, Idaho
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 149
Habitat RPA Action 150

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Clearwater Subbasin Assessment Provides fine scale information for planning tiered to subbasin assessment

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Objective 1.Surveys in FY 2002 (updates). a. Survey of aquatic resources 1 $52,000 Yes
b. Survey of terrestrial resources 1 $46,213 Yes
c. Survey of impacts 1 $33,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1. Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (FY 2003). 2003 2003 $100,000
Objective 2: Complete NEPA (FY 2003) 2003 2005 $150,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$150,000$50,000$50,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1. Implement Watershed, Riparian, and Terrestrial Recovery 2004 2006 $825,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$250,000$275,000$300,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1. Watershed, Riparian, and Terrestrial Recovery 2005 2010 $50,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2005FY 2006
$10,000$10,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Objective 1. Watershed, Riparian, and Terrestrial Recovery 2004 2006 $60,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$20,000$20,000$20,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 1 and 31 Pay periods for Technician Staff $77,000
Fringe Calculated at 29% $22,330
Supplies $1,000
Travel $1,200
Indirect Calculated at 20.9% $22,683
Capital $0
PIT tags # of tags: NA $0
Other lab costs $7,000
$131,213
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$131,213
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$131,213
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. The proposal makes a logical case for the need for the EAWS assessment of the Crooked River and for the development of criteria to prioritize watershed restoration alternatives. Once a final set of implementation actions is identified, and before the time and expense of the NEPA preparation occurs, the proposed implementation plan should be reviewed by an independent scientific group.

Dredge mining legacy identified as one of the major limiting factors in the Crooked River for summer/spring chinook and steelhead. Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout occur in the river's upper reaches. Dredge legacy is all in the lower section (a little in the middle section). How much consideration has been given to rehabilitating the dredge areas, like the ISRP observed in Granite Creek in the North Fork John Day River? Large-scale and expensive restoration efforts in these highly degraded systems are probably generally unwarranted, unless specific historical and biological information can be used to justify the action in a specific location through a predicted strong positive response from the target salmonid species.

The EAWS assessment and the prioritization criteria should include allow an assessment of how critical reclamation of the dredged areas are to steelhead and chinook production in the Crooked River system. In turn, this will provide direction for the suite of proposed future activities and give insight into the scale and expense of restoration alternative in the Crooked River system.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

T4,T5, M3 - some habitat restoration efforts are proposed for implementation prior to completion of assessments, for these efforts the criteria would be yes. This project addresses RPA 150 and 154. The watershed assessment should be completed prior to funding implementation activities. It is unclear how a budget for outyear implementation can be established without the completion of the assessment.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable in Part to conduct EAWS only (objective 3 of Planning & Design phase). The proposal would conduct terrestrial and aquatic surveys, conduct a watershed assessment following U.S. Forest Service procedure, and perform activities such as road closures and prescribed burning in a part of the Nez Perce National Forest. Crooked River supports strong populations of bull and westslope cutthroat trout in headwaters and a run of naturalized spring chinook, with a dredge mining "legacy" in the lower several miles. Reviewers felt this proposal, while fundable in part, merits a low funding priority, lower than all similar projects on Forest Service lands in the subbasin. The upper half of the watershed is unroaded, grazing was terminated in 1993, and only 8 miles of road have been built in the last decade.

The proposal makes a logical case for the need for the EAWS assessment of the Crooked River and for the development of criteria to prioritize watershed restoration alternatives. Once a final set of implementation actions is identified, and before the time and expense of the NEPA preparation occurs, the proposed implementation plan should be reviewed by an independent scientific group. As project sponsors note in their response, re-restoration of the dredged areas (a 1980's restoration project is generally viewed as being unsuccessful) probably will not be appropriate.

The proposal seeks funding for one year of surveys prior to EAWS preparation. The review panel feels that some of those surveys (such as sensitive plant surveys, wildlife habitat/population surveys) are not amenable to Bonneville funding and recommends that they be supported by the USFS if really needed for the EAWS. If such funding is not available and the survey work is deemed critical for the EAWS, the ISRP recommends that the EAWS be deferred to a later funding cycle. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that the watershed assessment should be completed prior to funding implementation activities. It may be that the best restoration plan for Crooked River is to simply leave it alone.

The ISRP endorses the proponent's proposal to investigate the possibility of linking terrestrial surveys to a national effort. The intent of the ISRP is not necessarily to provide data to the current NRI. Rather, the intent of the review comment was to suggest that data collected as part of project 28043 (at the local level for local inferences) might be collected at sites selected as an intensification of the current NRI sites using common data measurement protocols so that results could be more easily combined and compared at larger scales, e.g., to compare the Crooked River and Potlatch subbasins or the Clearwater and Salmon subbasins. Also see, the review of Project 28025.

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. This project will provide a means to understand the whole watershed and to rationally direct recovery projects/actions

Comments
This project will complete a watershed assessment, but this river system is not a priority subbasin under the BiOp.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and is reviewed under BPA's policy for funding habitat projects on federal lands.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
154


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: