FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200303000

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
28021 Narrative	Narrative
28021 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
28021 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	Lower Clearwater Habitat Enhancement Project
Proposal ID	200303000
Organization	Nez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Loren A. Kronemann
Mailing address	Nez Perce Tribe, P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email	2088437372 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Keith A. Lawrence
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Acquire, protect, enhance and restore a total of 10,000 acres of wildlife habitat on the Lower Clearwater River empahsizing habitats that will enhance recovery opportunities for listed fish stocks and/or NPTH Hatchery restoration efforts.
Target species	Canada goose, Bald eagle, Osprey, Yellow warbler, Black-capped chickadee, River otter, Pileated woodpecker, elk, White-tailed deer.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		On or near the Nez Perce Reservation
46.45	-116.8	Lower Clearwater

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
Habitat RPA Action 151
Habitat RPA Action 153

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.
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
199205700	Dworshak Wildlife Mitigation	Similar effort, less emphasis on ecosystem approach.
199002500	199005100, Lower Clearwater Aquatic Mammal Study	Established priority reccomendations for river otter habitat acquisition.
199901600	Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed	Focus on sediment reduction from road obliteration and resolving fish passage concerns with culverts.
198335000	NPTH	LCHEP will enhance terrestrial habitat in Lolo Creek drainage, where a NPTH acclimation facility is located on Yoosa Creek, a tributary of Lolo Creek.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1.	a. Develop office space.	1	$60,000	Yes
	b. Develop land acquisition plan.	1	$60,000
	c. NEPA Compliance	1	$45,000
	d. Acquisition Priorities	ongoing	$68,000
	e. Appraisals	ongoing	$15,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1.b	2003	2003	$10,000
d.	2003	2005	$40,000
e.	2003	2005	$140,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$80,000	$60,000	$30,000	$10,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
2. Land Acquisition	2.a Buy Land	3	$1,000,000
	b. perform resource inventory.	4	$15,000
	c. custodial management	4	$30,000
	d. site specific mngmnt. plan	4	$60,000
3. Restoration	3. Implement 2.d	4	$10,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
2.a	2003	2005	$7,000,000
b.	2003	2006	$150,000
c.	2003	2006	$75,000
d.	2003	2006	$200,000
3. Implement 2.d	2003	2006	$4,000,000
4. Noxious Weed Suppression	2003	2006	$500,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$7,200,000	$970,000	$2,330,000	$920,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
5. Operation and Maintenance	a. Road/culvert maintenance	4	$0
	b. Fence construction/maintenance	4	$10,000
	c. facilities	4	$5,000
	d. replant/ reseed	4	$0
	e. fire presuppression/ protection	4	$20,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
5.a	2003	2006	$100,000
b.	2003	2006	$80,000
c.	2003	2006	$60,000
d.	2003	2006	$1,000,000
e.	2003	2006	$60,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$65,000	$68,000	$175,000	$892,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
6. Monitoring	a.Monitoring Plan development	1	$30,000
	b.Adaptive management strategies	4	$0
	c.HEP measurement/ remeasurement	4	$0
	d. yearly monitoring	4	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
6. b	2003	2006	$25,000
c.	2003	2006	$70,000
d.	2003	2006	$320,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$50,000	$105,000	$140,000	$120,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.25	$75,000
Fringe	@ 30%	$22,500
Supplies		$50,000
Travel	2 vehicles @ $520/mo.and perdiem	$45,000
Indirect	21.9%	$42,158
Capital		$1,060,000
NEPA	Cultural and hazmat survey.may not be needed.	$45,000
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor		$15,000
Other	equipment (office, 4 wheelers and shop)	$73,342
		$1,428,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$1,428,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$1,428,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

n/a

Reason for change in scope

n/a

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:

Response needed. The priority of sites to acquire or the process to do this was not provided. This should fall out of a watershed assessment. The detailed watershed assessment and prescription must be conducted, then provide a plan that addresses the high priority habitat issues first. The latter must clearly indicate priorities for rehabilitation work and outline land tracts desired, and why, i.e., justification is required that is related to fish production benefits. The link of this project (see 199706000 and 199608600) with priorities within the Clearwater system is also required (indicate priority within the subbasin, and expected benefits), along with the tie to a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program (see comments on 28004) to document benefits.

The proposal, field tour, and presentation showed that project has great merit in terms of habitat abuses that it will focus on remedying. The project must be based on a comprehensive watershed assessment.

At least 4 literature sources shown in text (Bryson, Nowak, Statler, and Stovall, all these on p 25) are not listed in the reference section.

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. Also, see the ISRP's general comments on M&E in other NPT habitat restoration projects and the ISRP's programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

M4 - The intent of this project is to acquire riparian properties or highly erosive soil properties that will be available for cost share programs (i.e. CRP). This project addresses RPA 154 and possibly 153. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.

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

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable in part to acquire lands in portions of the targeted area where a watershed assessment is complete and there is potentially productive habitat. At present, the Lapwai Creek watershed alone meets those qualifications. Other portions of the proposals are not fundable without completion of an adequate "fish-centered" watershed assessment with demonstration of habitat potential. The detailed watershed assessment and prescription must be conducted, then used to provide a plan that addresses the high priority habitat issues first. The latter should clearly indicate priorities for rehabilitation work and outline land tracts desired, and why, i.e., justification is required that is related to fish production benefits. The link of this project (see 199706000 and 199608600) with priorities within the Clearwater system is also required (indicate priority within the subbasin, and expected benefits), along with the tie to a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program (see comments on 28004) to document benefits. 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.

The proposal, field tour, and presentation showed that the project has great merit in terms of identifying habitat abuses to remedy. More work is required to incorporate these land acquisitions into a subbasin M&E program. The ISRP endorses the commitment of the proponents to cooperate in the development and use of standardized site selection procedures and data collection protocols. See the reviews of project 28045.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Depending on implementation, protection and restoration of riparian habitat could indirectly increase survival by reducing water temperatures.

Comments
The project description states that it will attempt to enroll land in the Conservation Reserve Program (RPA 153), but does not give any specifics as to how much land, or what lands it will attempt to enroll in the program, or for how long. Project will partially implement RPA 153 if permanent or long term easement (i.e., > 15 years). Easement should be consistent with Oregon CREP. The proposal also discusses acquiring lands, but does not give any detail as to whether that land is already productive, or is in need of restoration. This project needs focus. Roughly $250K will be spent before any land is acquired. In addition, the Nez Perce Tribe received several million dollars in 1992, as mitigation for the Dworshak Reservoir, for the purpose of purchase and preservation of 10,000 acres of wildlife habitat in the Lower Clearwater River, to benefit the same indicator species.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
D

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. This project appears to be focused on wildlife habitat. It appears that there are no further construction/inundation wildlife credits available to be applied against this proposed project. We also note that any future watershed assessments will be conducted under the Council's subbasin planning process.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153), 154

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

Council recommendation: The Council recommends funding this project at levels dramatically less than originally proposed (see Table 1). This new work is one of the few wildlife habitat proposals presented in this province. The ISRP comments indicate that some of the likely acquisition lands are currently productive habitat. The Council's funding considerations favor funding new proposals that protect currently productive habitat. While coming from the wildlife division of NPT, this proposal does have linkages to anadromous fish, and would protect habitat in areas important for anadromous fish. The NMFS comments suggest that this project could respond to RPA 153 if implemented to achieve long- term protection in accord with NRCS standards.

Bonneville's comments state that the project is focused on wildlife habitat, and should not be funded because no construction/inundation credits remain for the lower Snake River projects that it would be credited to. The Council notes that there are discrepancies between this written comment, and Bonneville's web site that indicates there are substantial construction credits remaining for those projects. The Council notes that at the dramatically reduced scale that is recommended, it is quite likely that some credits remain available to deal with this project.

The Council recommends that the sponsor target habitat in those areas that have a completed watershed assessment that provides information on fisheries resources, as is suggested by the ISRP, and that this is made a condition of contracting.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
To Be Determine

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Defer funding until project can be reviewed for possible implementation of RPA 150.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

land acquisition. 02 geared to planning, 03 & 04 was geared to acquisition. Split 02 planning funds 50% in 2004 and 50% in 2005. CAPITAL PROJECT. Consider combining with Salmon project (other land project) Issue 13 from rec issue paper.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

This project was not funded by BPA in the 2001-2003 budget cycle. The project was approved through the Provincial review process. This project should be combined with 200301800 for a total of $1,997,000 to be capitalized in 2004.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
capital

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$712,500	$712,500	$712,500

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website