FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28043
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 |
---|---|
28043 Narrative | Narrative |
28043 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
28043 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Crooked River Ecosystem Assessment at the Watershed Scale |
Proposal ID | 28043 |
Organization | Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed (NPT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Craig Rabe |
Mailing address | PO Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
Phone / email | 2088437144 / cdrabe@pullman.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Ira Jones |
Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
Short description | Assess watershed conditions and develop and prioritize watershed restoration activities |
Target species | Spring/Summer Chinook, Steelhead trout, bull trout, pacific lamprey, cutthroat trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
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 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 |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
Clearwater Subbasin Assessment | Provides fine scale information for planning tiered to subbasin assessment |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|---|
$150,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 |
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Implement Watershed, Riparian, and Terrestrial Recovery | 2004 | 2006 | $825,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|
$250,000 | $275,000 | $300,000 |
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Watershed, Riparian, and Terrestrial Recovery | 2005 | 2010 | $50,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|
$10,000 | $10,000 |
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Objective 1. Watershed, Riparian, and Terrestrial Recovery | 2004 | 2006 | $60,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|
$20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 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 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
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.
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.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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits 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
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
Comment: