View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Province | Subbasin | % |
---|---|---|
Mountain Snake | Salmon | 100.00% |
To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"
To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page
Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY2023 | Expense | $777,249 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY23 SOY Budget Upload | 06/01/2022 |
FY2024 | Expense | $811,448 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY24 SOY Budget Upload | 06/01/2023 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
33331
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007 127 00 EXP NPT EFSF SALMON RIV PASSAGE RESTORATION | Closed | $24,314 | 6/1/2007 - 6/30/2008 |
38292
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP NPT SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $242,732 | 7/1/2008 - 3/31/2009 |
41069
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 200712700 EXP NPT SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $644,811 | 4/1/2009 - 3/31/2010 |
46374
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $765,641 | 4/1/2010 - 6/30/2011 |
52253
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $721,348 | 4/1/2011 - 3/31/2012 |
56442
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $737,769 | 4/1/2012 - 3/31/2013 |
60876
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $733,801 | 4/1/2013 - 3/31/2014 |
64653
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $744,992 | 4/1/2014 - 3/31/2015 |
68680
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $765,316 | 4/1/2015 - 3/31/2016 |
72273
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON WATERSHED RESTORATION | Closed | $704,334 | 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017 |
76296
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Closed | $693,826 | 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018 |
74017 REL 26
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Closed | $669,382 | 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019 |
74017 REL 48
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Closed | $680,623 | 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020 |
74017 REL 68
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Closed | $684,789 | 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2021 |
74017 REL 87
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Closed | $670,611 | 4/1/2021 - 3/31/2022 |
74017 REL 105
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Closed | $777,249 | 4/1/2022 - 3/31/2023 |
84044 REL 20
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Issued | $777,249 | 4/1/2023 - 3/31/2024 |
84044 REL 47
![]() |
Nez Perce Tribe | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Issued | $811,448 | 4/1/2024 - 3/31/2025 |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 16 |
Completed: | 16 |
On time: | 15 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 69 |
On time: | 43 |
Avg Days Late: | 0 |
Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
33331 | 38292, 41069, 46374, 52253, 56442, 60876, 64653, 68680, 72273, 76296, 74017 REL 26, 74017 REL 48, 74017 REL 68, 74017 REL 87, 74017 REL 105, 84044 REL 20, 84044 REL 47 | 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION | Nez Perce Tribe | 06/01/2007 | 03/31/2025 | Issued | 69 | 216 | 13 | 0 | 30 | 259 | 88.42% | 1 |
Project Totals | 69 | 216 | 13 | 0 | 30 | 259 | 88.42% | 1 |
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-NPCC-20230310 |
---|---|
Project: | 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration |
Review: | 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review |
Approved Date: | 4/15/2022 |
Recommendation: | Implement |
Comments: |
Bonneville and Sponsor to take the review remarks into consideration in project documentation. [Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/] |
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-ISRP-20230324 |
---|---|
Project: | 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration |
Review: | 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review |
Completed Date: | None |
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-NPCC-20131126 |
---|---|
Project: | 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal: | GEOREV-2007-127-00 |
Proposal State: | Pending BPA Response |
Approved Date: | 11/5/2013 |
Recommendation: | Implement with Conditions |
Comments: | Implement through FY 2018: See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring. |
Conditions: | |
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring. |
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-ISRP-20130610 |
---|---|
Project: | 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal Number: | GEOREV-2007-127-00 |
Completed Date: | 6/11/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | 6/10/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
This is a detailed, well organized proposal. The effort targets a number of key limiting factors previously identified for the watershed. The South Fork Salmon appears to be a watershed worthy of restoration based on the description of historical abundance. Quantitative deliverables were provided. A fine sediment goal of 28% seems high compared to recent review estimates of 14% for achieving high survival, but the sponsors justified the estimate based on NOAA criteria for this region. The program relies on ISEMP and Action effectiveness monitoring conducted by other programs. NPT will conduct their own monitoring where others are not present. It was not described how these monitoring efforts would be coordinated, and that should be included in future proposals. The lengthy proposal reflects a great deal of preparation effort and is clearly written. Proposed actions seem to have a good likelihood of improving spawning and rearing habitat for fish over time. 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The objectives of the proposed work are clearly significant to regional programs. The proposal includes an excellent summary of information relevant to the problems and limiting factors being addressed. Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments, and the degree of hatchery influence and demographic trends. The problem statement includes a rich, compelling, and succinct explanation of limiting factors and indicates what aspects of the limiting factors will be addressed in this project. The well-organized and well-reasoned section on proposed monitoring from compliance to status and trends was much appreciated, although it seems out of place in the problem statement. The ISRP appreciated that two of these rivers will be linked to CHaMP and ISEMP status and trends monitoring. The five objectives are relevant and clearly defined; most are at least partially quantitative with explicit criteria for success or desired outcomes. An exception is Objective 3, protect and restore riparian habitats, for which no target is identified. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) The effort to explain activities to date and to present preliminary evaluations of results is commendable. The informative tables and figures, well-reasoned discussions, and the overall attention to detail inspire confidence in the abilities of the project sponsors to complete this project and obtain meaningful results. Descriptions of documented evidence from other studies and summary of lessons learned all show evidence of adaptive management and thoughtful consideration of previous comments by the ISRP. There is good detail on the use of GRAIP and other results. Much attention was paid to describing the process by which efforts are prioritized. Graphics, maps, and photos were helpful. The Adaptive Management discussion explained how project operations, especially protocols for assessing sediment delivery from roads and success of tree and shrub planting, have been improved from previous efforts. Well done. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions A detailed section on collaborative activities provides compelling evidence of extensive and apparently successful project relationships. The sponsors effectively presented the expected consequences of climate change and the implications for how restoration activities should be prioritized and implemented. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables are described in commendable detail, but it is occasionally difficult to identify quantitative targets. In particular, the target for DELV-6 (Mine restoration) is vague. Deliverables, work elements, and methods are well organized and clearly linked to objectives. The summary provided quantitative deliverables, which can then be used to judge whether the project was successfully implemented. The sponsors largely rely upon CHaMP and ISEMP monitoring that is conducted by others in most watersheds; NPT will implement monitoring in remaining watersheds. The previous ISRP review mentioned the need for juvenile monitoring to determine the response to cleaner sediments. The monitoring description was the weak part of this proposal, largely because details were not described. The proposal referenced other monitoring efforts but did not describe in enough detail how the regional programs were to be conducted to evaluate fish responses. |
|
First Round ISRP Date: | 6/10/2013 |
First Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
First Round ISRP Comment: | |
This is a detailed, well organized proposal. The effort targets a number of key limiting factors previously identified for the watershed. The South Fork Salmon appears to be a watershed worthy of restoration based on the description of historical abundance. Quantitative deliverables were provided. A fine sediment goal of 28% seems high compared to recent review estimates of 14% for achieving high survival, but the sponsors justified the estimate based on NOAA criteria for this region. The program relies on ISEMP and Action effectiveness monitoring conducted by other programs. NPT will conduct their own monitoring where others are not present. It was not described how these monitoring efforts would be coordinated, and that should be included in future proposals. The lengthy proposal reflects a great deal of preparation effort and is clearly written. Proposed actions seem to have a good likelihood of improving spawning and rearing habitat for fish over time. 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The objectives of the proposed work are clearly significant to regional programs. The proposal includes an excellent summary of information relevant to the problems and limiting factors being addressed. Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments, and the degree of hatchery influence and demographic trends. The problem statement includes a rich, compelling, and succinct explanation of limiting factors and indicates what aspects of the limiting factors will be addressed in this project. The well-organized and well-reasoned section on proposed monitoring from compliance to status and trends was much appreciated, although it seems out of place in the problem statement. The ISRP appreciated that two of these rivers will be linked to CHaMP and ISEMP status and trends monitoring. The five objectives are relevant and clearly defined; most are at least partially quantitative with explicit criteria for success or desired outcomes. An exception is Objective 3, protect and restore riparian habitats, for which no target is identified. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) The effort to explain activities to date and to present preliminary evaluations of results is commendable. The informative tables and figures, well-reasoned discussions, and the overall attention to detail inspire confidence in the abilities of the project sponsors to complete this project and obtain meaningful results. Descriptions of documented evidence from other studies and summary of lessons learned all show evidence of adaptive management and thoughtful consideration of previous comments by the ISRP. There is good detail on the use of GRAIP and other results. Much attention was paid to describing the process by which efforts are prioritized. Graphics, maps, and photos were helpful. The Adaptive Management discussion explained how project operations, especially protocols for assessing sediment delivery from roads and success of tree and shrub planting, have been improved from previous efforts. Well done. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions A detailed section on collaborative activities provides compelling evidence of extensive and apparently successful project relationships. The sponsors effectively presented the expected consequences of climate change and the implications for how restoration activities should be prioritized and implemented. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables are described in commendable detail, but it is occasionally difficult to identify quantitative targets. In particular, the target for DELV-6 (Mine restoration) is vague. Deliverables, work elements, and methods are well organized and clearly linked to objectives. The summary provided quantitative deliverables, which can then be used to judge whether the project was successfully implemented. The sponsors largely rely upon CHaMP and ISEMP monitoring that is conducted by others in most watersheds; NPT will implement monitoring in remaining watersheds. The previous ISRP review mentioned the need for juvenile monitoring to determine the response to cleaner sediments. The monitoring description was the weak part of this proposal, largely because details were not described. The proposal referenced other monitoring efforts but did not describe in enough detail how the regional programs were to be conducted to evaluate fish responses. Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:51:53 AM. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-NPCC-20090924 |
---|---|
Project: | 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
Recommendation: | Do Not Fund |
Comments: |
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-ISRP-20060831 |
---|---|
Project: | 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
This project is to provide fish passage for steelhead, chinook and bull trout past an old mine site. This seems like heroic engineering, but that may be what is required in this instance. Future M&E will be critical to know if the passage section is functioning as predicted and to monitor fish use in the section above the new passage.
Reviewers remain concerned about whether BPA has funding responsibility for this entire project, the benefits to fish (bull trout) that may already have passage (albeit limited), and about the amount of available habitat upstream of the project relative to the cost of the project. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-INLIEU-20090521 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 2007-127-00 |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 10/6/2006 |
In Lieu Rating: | No Problems Exist |
Cost Share Rating: | None |
Comment: | Reestablish passage through falls, on FS lands; assume covered by BPA-FS MOU. |
Assessment Number: | 2007-127-00-CAPITAL-20090618 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 2007-127-00 |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
Capital Asset Category: | None |
Comment: | None |
Name | Role | Organization |
---|---|---|
Emmit Taylor, Jr. | Technical Contact | Nez Perce Tribe |
Daniel Gambetta | Interested Party | Bonneville Power Administration |
Wesley Keller | Project Lead | Nez Perce Tribe |
Marcie Carter | Supervisor | Nez Perce Tribe |
Matthew Schwartz | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |
Eric Leitzinger | Interested Party | Bonneville Power Administration |
Jacquelyn Schei | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |