Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-127-00 - East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration
Project Number:
2007-127-00
Title:
East Fork of South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration
Summary:
While full project initiation and implementation is currently awaiting the settlement of the FCRPS Biological Opinion (BiOp), this project will cover the intra and inter agency planning and coordination pre-implementation activities required to transition smoothly to implementation upon BiOp approval. The Nez Perce Tribe will begin the planning and coordination process for the East Fork of the South Fork Salmon River Fish Passage Restoration near Yellow Pine, Idaho with the US Forest Service (Payette National Forest), IDFG, DEQ, and other applicable parties. Since this passage restoration project will be implemented on private land owned by the Bradley Mining Company, the NPT Project Manager will work with the Forest Service and BPA to investigate the environmental compliance requirements, including NEPA, ESA and cultural resources consultation. The Payette National Forest, IDFG, and IDEQ will be providing cost-share and/or technical resources for the project upon implementation.

Due to the delay in the issuance of the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (FCRPS BiOp), the East Fork of the South Fork Salmon River Passage Restoration project did not begin in fiscal year 2007 as originally planned. A pre-implementation planning and coordination contract was issued in FY 2007 to begin the necessary project planning and environmental compliance requirements with the Payette National Forest (PNF) and the Boise National Forest (BNF) while the BiOp awaited resolution. Because no implementation began in FY 07, the private landowner in the project focal area entered into a lease to purchase agreement with the Vista Gold mining company who has begun exploratory research to determine the feasibility of re-initiating mining activities.

Since steelhead, spring chinook, bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout passage can not currently be restored through the old Stibnite Mine Site as originally proposed due to lack of landowner consent, the Nez Perce Tribe and Forest Service (PNF and BNF) proposed several other high priority habitat restoration actions throughout the South Fork Salmon watershed to provide the same or more biological benefit to the corresponding fish population groups. This change in scope request was approved by the Budget Oversight Group (BOG), and the geographic area of the project increased from one small site on the East Fork of the South Fork Salmon river to many habitat improvement sites throughout the South Fork Salmon watershed.

Instead of restoring fish passage through the former mine site using a natural step pool configuration, reconnecting the floodplain, re-vegetating the riparian area and increasing instream habitat complexity within one small area of the subwatershed, the NPT, PNF and BNF will now replace fish passage barrier culverts, reconnect floodplains, re-vegetate riparian areas, increase instream habitat complexity and decommission roads within the entire South Fork Salmon watershed. As a result, the potential to provide direct biological benefit to the anadromous and resident fish populations is greatly increased over a much larger geographic area for the same quantity of funds.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2019
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Salmon 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 90.0%   Resident: 10.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $777,249 $777,249 $777,249 $777,249 $765,342

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $777,249 $777,249 $777,249 $765,342
FY2019 (Current) $777,249 $777,249 $777,249 $50,664

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $777,249 $777,249 $777,249 $50,664
FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $777,249 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $777,249 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY19 Nez Perce Budgets 11/07/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2013 (Draft)
2012 $195,722 20 %
2011 $472,738 38 %
2010
2009 $269,290 29 %
2008 $26,087 10 %
2007 $27,500 53 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
76296 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-127-00 EXP SOUTH FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION Issued $784,449 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018
74017 REL 26 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION Issued $777,249 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
CR-329641 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 2007-127-00 EXP E FORK OF S FORK SALMON PASSAGE RESTORATION Pending $777,249 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):10
Completed:10
On time:9
Status Reports
Completed:46
On time:34
Avg Days Late:0

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
33331 38292, 41069, 46374, 52253, 56442, 60876, 64653, 68680, 72273, 76296, 74017 REL 26 2007 127 00 EXP NPT EFSF SALMON RIV PASSAGE RESTORATION Nez Perce Tribe 06/2007 06/2007 Pending 46 124 11 0 21 156 86.54% 0
Project Totals 46 124 11 0 21 156 86.54% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

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.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

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:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

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.

Capital Assessment

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

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Emmit Taylor, Jr. Technical Contact Nez Perce Tribe
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Daniel Gambetta Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Wesley Keller Project Lead Nez Perce Tribe
Marcie Carter Supervisor Nez Perce Tribe
Sandra Fife Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Zachary Gustafson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration