Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore Deer Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 28044 |
| 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 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ira Jones |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Protect and restore valuable fluvial aquatic habitat by improving riparian and watershed conditions in upper watershed through watershed assessment and restoration activities in Deer Creek watershed. |
| Target species | Spring/Summer Chinook, Steelhead trout, bull trout, pacific lamprey, cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.9994 |
-116.6947 |
Deer Creek begins at river mile 13.8 on the Salmon River and extends approximately 17 miles to headwaters on Craig Mountain. |
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
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Salmon Subbasin Planning Process |
Provides fine scale information for planning |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 1. Determine available and needed data for EAWS |
a. Collect existing and historical data |
1 |
$15,000 |
Yes |
|
b. Collect information on future management plans for watershed |
Ongoing |
$6,000 |
Yes |
|
c. Conduct aerial photographic reconnaissance to identify additional problem areas and establish a baseline |
1 |
$8,000 |
Yes |
| Objective 2. Collect necessary data for EAWS in FY 2002 |
a. Survey of aquatic resources |
1 |
$42,000 |
Yes |
|
b. Survey of terrestrial resources |
1 |
$40,213 |
Yes |
|
c. Survey of Impacts |
1 |
$20,000 |
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 |
|---|
| Construct fence to protect riparian areas |
Conduct a site visit prior to fence construction to establish fence placement. |
2002 |
$600 |
|
|
Purchase fencing materials |
|
$3,000 |
|
|
Construct 3 miles of fence |
|
$20,400 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Objective 1. Implement Watershed, Riparian, and Terrestrial Recovery |
2003 |
2006 |
$849,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $24,000 | $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 |
2003 |
2010 |
$70,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $10,000 | $10,000 | $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 |
2010 |
$120,000 |
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 38 Pay periods for Technician Staff |
$89,908 |
| Fringe |
Calculated at 29% |
$26,073 |
| Supplies |
|
$4,000 |
| Travel |
|
$1,400 |
| Indirect |
Calculated at 20.9% |
$26,832 |
| Capital |
|
$0 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: NA |
$0 |
| Other |
lab costs |
$7,000 |
| $155,213 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $155,213 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $155,213 |
| 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.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. This is a proposal to improve habitat for resident fish and wildlife along Deer Creek above the falls. Reviewers question the value provided by stream habitat restoration if the dominant benefactor is brook trout, as appears to be the case here.
According to the proposal, the Nez Perce Tribe currently owns 27% of the watershed and proposes to conduct an Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EWAS) to describe current conditions and make management decisions. There is an apparent lack of current management consensus with the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, which owns half of the watershed, and the EWAS is proposed as a method to enable consensus. To what extent do IDFG and other landowners advocate EWAS preparation? Also, the EWAS approach relies on the expertise of an interdisciplinary team (IDT). To what extent would the Deer Creek IDT members represent a variety of groups and agencies?
Deer Creek is a site being considered for reservoir construction by NPT (under proposal 199501300, Resident Fish Substitution Program). This was not mentioned in this proposal. What are the implications of possible reservoir construction to this proposal?
Also, a response is needed that addresses the option of buying out the grazing lease instead of building and maintaining fence. Please clarify the numbers and ownership of stock involved and the timing of current grazing.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001
Comment:
This project addresses RPA 154. This proposal will directly benefit redband trout; however, the presence of bull trout was not identified. Improved water quality will benefit anadromous fish located below the falls. The reservoir project is not currently planned for this area.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001
Comment:
Not fundable. This is a proposal to primarily improve habitat for resident fish and wildlife along Deer Creek above the falls. Reviewers question the value provided by stream habitat restoration if the dominant benefactor is brook trout, as appears to be the case here.
According to the proposal, the Nez Perce Tribe currently owns 27% of the watershed and proposes to conduct an Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) to describe current conditions and make management decisions. There is an apparent lack of current management consensus with the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, which owns half of the watershed, and the EAWS is proposed as a method to enable consensus. Reviewers saw no indication that completion of an EAWS would provide substantial additional valuable information in this situation. The proposal and response do not adequately describe alternative management options. We suggest that in future the proponents reconsider all available options, including buying out the grazing rights, conservation easements, fencing of the riparian zone, use of the CRP program, and purchase of private property.
The ISRP reiterates its recommendation that Lower Salmon (and Little Salmon) proposals (such as this, the following IDFG's proposal #28018 and the Nez Perce Tribe's proposal #28010) need to be better coordinated with consensus on approaches to protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
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.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Conduct watershed assessment to guide restoration activities, and ultimately protect/improve habitat through riparian fencing.Comments
This project will complete a watershed assessment, but this river system is not a priority subbasin under the BiOp. Furthermore, all of the work will be above the falls which is a barrier to anadromous fish. There is insufficient detail to determine if the actions proposed are cost effective and in some cases even whether they are beneficial within the watershed. The design also calls for the construction of nine miles of fence to be built along sections of a stream which will be redirected in later stages of the project. This would require re-building several stretches of fence where the stream has been moved.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002
Comment: