FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200204000

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleReturn Spawning/Rearing Habitat to Anadromous/Resident Fish within the Squaw Creek to Papoose Creek Analysis Area Watersheds
Proposal ID200204000
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameEmmit E. Taylor Jr.
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437144 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this projectIra Jones
Review cycleFY 2001 High Priority
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionProvide 20 miles of fisheries habitat within the Squaw to Papoose Creeks Analysis Area by replacing the top 10 fish barrier culverts, a critical component of an on-going watershed restoration effort, based on a completed watershed assessment.
Target speciesSpring Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.4923 -114.8567 Squaw Creek
46.5114 -114.7606 Papoose Creek
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 149 NMFS BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004
$3,500$3,850$4,235

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Capital Culverts $100,000
Subcontractor $320,000
$420,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$420,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$420,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
NPFWP - BPA Project #199607709 Site Survey - 10 sites @ $150/site $1,500 in-kind
NPFWP - BPA Project #199607709 Design - 10 sites @ $750/site $7,500 in-kind
NPFWP - BPA Project #199607709 Contract Administration - 10 sites @ $750/site $7,500 in-kind
Clearwater National Forest 3 additional replacement pipe arch culvert purchaces $50,000 cash
Clearwater National Forest 3 additional replacement pipe arch culvert installations (6 miles of fisheries habitat returned) $100,000 cash
Clearwater National Forest Site Survey Assistance - 10 sites @ $1000/site $10,000 in-kind
Clearwater National Forest Design Assistance - 10 sites @ $1000/site $10,000 in-kind
Clearwater National Forest NEPA - 1 document for all $4,000 in-kind
Clearwater National Forest Contract Development - 10 sites @ $360/site $3,600 in-kind
Clearwater National Forest Contract Administration Assistance - 10 sites @ $1000/site $10,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
A
Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This is a good straight-forward proposal that includes a map and describes the location of activities. The proposal meets the Council's criteria. This is a high priority area. They should consider potential impacts on native resident stocks if they are present above the culverts. The USFS will provide monitoring in the future.
Recommendation:
HP "A"
Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 15, 2001

Comment:

ISRP Comment: They should consider potential impacts on native resident stocks if they are present above the culverts.

Response: There will be no impact on native resident stocks by the culvert replacements through this proposal by non-native fish species, in particular brook trout. Brook trout occur in very low numbers in the mainstem Lochsa River. There are no documented brook trout occurrences in Squaw, Papoose, Badger, Wendover, or Parachute Creek drainages; therefore the risks for impacts are very low. Replacing the culverts would not have any impact on the existing native fish populations (Draft Environmental Assessment, Clearwater National Forest and Nez Perce Tribe, 2001).


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 26, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
RPA 149
Date:
Apr 20, 2001

Comment:

This project would replace or remove several culverts that have barred passage to productive spawning habitat. Removing passage barriers is a high priority. The project would benefit listed salmonids immediately and tangibly. In addition, it could provide data necessary to quantify the benefits of removing passage barriers. We understand that BPA has concerns regarding the "in lieu" status of this project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund; BPA not responsible
Date:
May 8, 2001

Comment:

Proposal no. 23032, although a sound proposal from a biological perspective, appears to be one that could or should be funded by the U.S. Forest Service as part of their obligation under the Endangered Species Act and their enabling Acts. We note that in the Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy (All-H Strategy) released by the Federal Caucus agencies in December 2000, the Federal land managers have primary responsibility for protection of existing high quality habitat and accelerated restoration of habitat on Federal lands located in high priority subbasins. We recognize that similar actions have been funded through the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program in the past, however, we want to stress that in implementing our responsibilities under the All-H Strategy, BPA is focused on actions on non-Federal lands and is calling upon our fellow Federal agencies to seek the Federal appropriations necessary to implement their All-H responsibilities. We do not intent to fund this proposal at this time, but we recognize the biological benefits this project would produce and will pursue discussions with the U.S. Forest Service to determine other funding mechanisms that may be available.