FY07-09 proposal 200712600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleProtect and Restore the Lower Snake Tributary and Pataha Streams/Watersheds - Nez Perce Tribe
Proposal ID200712600
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe DFRM Watershed Division
Short descriptionFill critical data gap in the Lower Snake Subbasin tributary streams as well as the Pataha Creek drainage within the Tucannaon River Subbasin through inventory, assessment, prioritization of fish passage barriers for removal, rennovation or replacement .
Information transferFish passage inventory, and assessment will be completed and compiled by our program. This information will be housed and available at the NPT DFRM Watershed Division. Data will be forwarded to StreamNet. The infomation will be provided to the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), Pomeroy County Conservation District and the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board in both printed and electronic format. In addition, information from this project will utilized to update the Lower Snake and Tucannon River Subbasin Plans and the SE Washington Recovery Plan.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Form submitter
Paul Kraynak Nez Perce Tribe pkraynak@nezperce.org
All assigned contacts
Paul Kraynak Nez Perce Tribe pkraynak@nezperce.org
Mark D. Reaney, Jr., P.E. Nez Perce Tribe DFRM/Watershed Div. markr@nezperce.org
Emmit Taylor, Jr. Nez Perce Tribe DFRM/Watershed Div. emmitt@nezperce.org

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Snake Lower

Alkali Flat Creek Fish Passage Barriers on Alkali Flat Creek
Almota Creek Fish Passage Barriers on Almota Creek
Deadman Creek Fish Passage barriers on Deadman Creek
Meadow Creek Fish Passage Barriers on Meadow Creek
Pataha Creek Fish Passage Barriers on Pataha Creek
Penawawa Creek Fish Passage Barriers on Penewawa Creek
Steptoe Canyon Fish Passage Barriers on Steptoe Canyon Creek
Wawawai Canyon Fish Passage Barriers on WaWaWai Canyon Creek

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Steelhead Snake River ESU

Section 4. Past accomplishments


Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
Other: SRFB -WA 00-1696n Brief Assessment of Salmonids and Stream Habitat The Brief Assessment of Salmonids and Stream Habitat Conditions in the Snake River Tributaries of Asotin, Whitman and Garfield Counties in Washington sampled streams for salmonid presence, absence and abundance in streams that are part of this proposal. The report gave insight into possible fish barriers and was the basis for the statement that "we need a complete inventory and assessment of the barriers" in the Lower Snake subbasin. We plan to complete the need for fish passage assesment.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Remove Passage Barriers A comprehensive inventory of culverts and barriers within the restoration/protection areas of the Lower Snake Subbasin along with the design and implementation of remediation measures will allow for increased fish passage and a resultant increase in fish survival. Lower Snake The Lower Snake Subbasin plan states this is a high prioity due to imminent threat and is listed apart from the strategies.
Remove Passage Barriers A comprehensive inventory of culverts and barriers on Pataha Creek. Though listed in the Tucannon Subbasin, I have combined Pataha Creek with this Lower Snake Subbasin proposal due to its close proximity to the Lower Snake streams included in this proposal. This was agreed to by the Pomeroy Conservation District Manager who oversees the Lower Snake subbasin streams and has a cooperative agreement with the Columbia County Conservation District Manager to oversee the projects that take place on the Pataha Creek. Tucannon The Tucannon Subbasin plan states this is a high prioity due to imminent threat and is listed apart from the strategies.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Manage and Administer Projects Management, Coordination, and Communication Project management includes coordinating project activities, attending meetings, seeking additional funding, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, completing reports, and responding to BPA requests. 11/1/2006 9/30/2009 $51,560
Biological objectives
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs Involvement and Development of Watershed Level Monitoring and Evaluation Plan No watershed level status and trend M&E was proposed per NWPCC direction due to current efforts through PNAMP, CSMEP, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board and state efforts. Project manager or designated personnel will engage in these forums and coordinate with federal, state and local groups in the development of a M&E strategy for the Lower Snake Subbasin watersheds. 11/1/2006 10/30/2009 $44,072
Biological objectives
Remove Passage Barriers
Produce Status Report Complete Quarterly Status Reports Complete quartely status reports to BPA on milestones progress in Pisces. 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $25,820
Biological objectives
Produce Annual Report Produce Annual Report Complete quartely status reports to BPA on milestones progress in Pisces.Annual report describes all yearly activities, successes and problems encountered including photos and summary of all data collected and analysis completed 3/1/2007 2/28/2010 $22,622
Biological objectives
Outreach and Education Outreach to Community on Passage Project Outreach to educate the Community and agencies on the importance and process of the fish passage assessment project. Outreach will occur through mailings, and presentations to the public, county commissioners, PCD, WDFW and the Garfield County road department 11/1/2006 10/30/2009 $40,016
Biological objectives
* # of general public reached: 100.0
Coordination Coordination and Partnering Agreement with Pomeroy Conservation District Coordinate with Pomeroy Conservation District and WDFW on project logistics, scope of work, methodologies and time lines. Collect existing data and map layers from Pomeroy Conservation District and WDFW and compile it into a single standard format. Secure permission from private landowners, and Garfield County Road Department and others to perform road crossing surveys. 11/1/2006 9/30/2009 $37,052
Biological objectives
Create/Manage/Maintain Database Develop and Maintain Database for Passage Data Collection Develop and maintain a database for data housing and analysis. Database will be used to dissiminate information about the project to WDFW, PCD, Garfiled County Road Department and the public as well as StreamNet and for BPA reporting. 11/1/2006 10/30/2009 $47,140
Biological objectives
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Survey Road Crossings and Other Potential Anthropogenic and Natural Barriers Survey road crossings (culverts, bridges, fords) and other potential anthopogenic (diversions, push up dams, etc.) and natural (waterfalls, etc) barriers to fish passage on Pataha, Alkali Flat, Almota, Deadman, Meadow, Penewawa, Steptoe, Canyon, and Wawawai Creeks. Survey methodology will follow a national protocol developed by the US Forest Service to determine barriers to adult and juvenile fish species. Protocol and methodology will be coordinated and finalized with the WDFW. 3/1/2007 11/1/2008 $219,312
Biological objectives
Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze Road Crossing Data for Fish Passage Analyze data collected to determine fish passage barriers for adult and juvenile fish species using flow charts in approved protocol and Fish Xing model. Create GIS layers and maps to present analysis. 3/1/2008 10/30/2009 $53,484
Biological objectives
Produce Plan Produce Fish Passage Restoration Plan In coordination with the WDFW and PCD, produce a fish passage restoration plan. The plan will be based on the barrier data analysis, restoration priority areas determined by Subbasin Plan, amount of habitat returned to juvenile and adult fish, and a cost benefit analysis. 11/1/2008 10/30/2009 $46,048
Biological objectives
Produce Design and/or Specifications Produce Design, Specification and Cost-Estimate for Top 3 Barriers Based on the Fish Passage Plan, complete a full survey, design, specifications and cost estimates for the top 3 barriers identified. Search for alternative funding for project implementation. 3/1/2008 10/30/2009 $25,820
Biological objectives

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
Personnel Salaries & Wages $103,260 $112,300 $91,580
Fringe Benefits Employee Benefits $30,978 $33,690 $27,474
Travel Travel/Per Diem $2,759 $2,759 $2,759
Other Training Expense $1,365 $1,365 $1,365
Other Telecommunications $2,260 $2,260 $2,260
Supplies Office Supplies $1,800 $1,800 $1,800
Supplies Field Supplies/Materials/Hardware $4,034 $500 $500
Overhead GSA Vehicle Rent $10,660 $10,660 $10,660
Supplies Desk top/Laptop Computers, External hardrive, Virus protection, 1MB USB Storage device $5,750 $0 $0
Overhead Administrative Overhead/Indirect Expense $48,274 $49,005 $41,021
Other Office Space Rent $683 $683 $683
Capital Equipment 2-Trimble GPS Units $6,000 $0 $0
Totals $217,822 $215,022 $180,102
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $612,946
Total work element budget: $612,948
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Pomeroy Conservation District Landowner permission, maps, logistics, planning $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 In-Kind Confirmed
WDFW Culvert Suvey and Analysis: logisitics, maps, tech support, planning $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $10,000 $11,000 $12,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $250,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $250,000
Comments: This project will move into the next phase with replacement of fish barriers based off this survey, analysis and prioritization project. In addition, other restoation projects will be investigated in 2007-2009.

Future O&M costs: None

Termination date: On-going
Comments: This project will be on-going until tribal and regional habitat monitoring parameters are achieved that are currently under development, and tribal and recovery fish numbers are met for specific species (Steelhead) that are also under development.

Final deliverables: Lower Snake Subbasin tributary watersheds will be intact, healthy, and properly functioning so that it is able to support all native anadromous and resident fish species at historical or near-historical levels. Streams within the watershed will meet Watershed/Stream standards.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

200712600 Narrative Corrected Jul 2006
Response to ISRP-Lower Snake Jul 2006
NPT Umbrella Comment Memo Jul 2006
NPT DFRM Watershed Umbrella Comments Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Expense ProvinceExpense Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 ProvinceExpense


Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The project proposal addresses primary fish passage issue within the Lower Snake and Tucannon subbasins through an inventory of culverts and other obstructions. The problem is straightforward. Barriers can seriously hamper fish movement upstream and downstream. The sponsors propose to identify and replace barriers that impair fish movement. The project also proposes to develop an action plan to reengineer these passage issues where feasible. Fish passage issues are problematic for Lower Snake Steelhead. The ISRP finds the proposal potentially fundable if the individual projects can be appropriately justified and prioritized with habitat conditions above the current barriers as productive for focal species’ populations. Specifically, the proposal needs a stronger justification as to why it is needed, how it will lead to population responses, and where in the Subbasin priorities these actions fall. Moreover, the ISRP is uncertain as to why existing culvert inventories are inadequate to prioritize individual projects at present to justify what seem to be high inventory and design costs. Also, will an updated assessment (and priority projects) realistically lead to fish populations using the newly accessible habitats? In addition to strengthening the justification, the ISRP recommends that the response should address and clarify a number of other key issues. The timeframe (along with costs) appear to be greater than for other such “culvert” projects. A three-year time horizon for inventory seems excessive. A summary of previous efforts that justifies this time and expense might provide such support. Another benefit of summarizing what is presently known about barriers in this subbasin would provide the basis for their conclusion that present inventories are significantly incomplete. Ultimately, this is a proposal to develop a new program of passage improvement for the Lower Snake Subbasin. It is intended to be an ongoing program; the identified problems to be addressed after the initial steps of barrier identification and plans for improvement. The ISRP recommends it be approved only for the development of the needs as a standalone project. Upon identification and prioritization of substantial barriers, subsequent project proposals may be submitted for review and funding based on measurable objectives, expected impact, and suitable M&E elements. The ISRP recommends clarifying the relationship of this assessment project to other ongoing or proposed projects. Other projects are mentioned, but there is no summary of what is known and what specific actions are presently underway by other groups. Simply listing other projects and entities without a tie-in is not convincing that the assessment is critical or will lead to projects that will benefit focal fish populations. The objectives are clear and flow somewhat from the problem statement, but are really tasks rather than measurable biological objectives (e.g., return x# steelhead to watershed or provide access to y# miles of spawning/nursery habitat). Perhaps including a salmon biologist on the team would be helpful. How will quality, quantity, and type of habitat (e.g., spawning area, rearing habitat, thermal refuge) above the barrier be assessed? A barrier may receive a red rating and be replaced but the habitat above the barrier may be so degraded that it is only marginally suitable for fish. Habitat condition should be part of the prioritization process. The sponsors should explain how habitat conditions will be taken into account. Watershed-scale population monitoring will be done by co-managers. Are the co-managers aware of this and building in appropriate effectiveness and population monitoring to measure a response?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The ISRP recommends funding part of this project as a stand-alone effort. Specifically, we recommend the sponsors develop and complete a needs assessment to include identification (inventory) of substantial barriers with a prioritization for a removal sequence based on the expected impact and contribution to not only habitat improvement on a course level, but also to focal species at fine level. The sponsors appear to have misinterpreted the ISRP's original review comment pertaining to justification of barrier removal. The ISRP does not dispute the general fact that removal of barriers can - but not necessarily will - result in increased fish production, which seems to be the question that the sponsors were addressing. The ISRP recommended justification of each specific project based on the quality and quantity of habitat above a barrier (not just miles of stream as the sponsors propose) and the potential increase in fish use and benefit. Here, the ISRP adds the Qualification to this Fundable in Part recommendation that provisions be made in the assessment for quantitative evaluation of habitat quality and quantity above each barrier, and that these estimates should play a major role in prioritizing barrier replacement/removal projects. Provisions also should be made for some level of assessment of fish use and abundance after barrier replacement/removal. From this inventory and prioritization, subsequent project proposal(s) to remove specific barriers or groups of barriers will have greater justification (along with measurable objectives, expected outcomes, and suitable M&E – implementation and effectiveness). Ultimately, much of the required information may be available for assembly rather than a new comprehensive inventory. Many USDA Forest Service units collect such information. As for future proposals, M&E need not be a long-term, intensive monitoring program, but should include straightforward assessment indexes to verify that barrier removal did or did not provide access and use by focal species as well as non-native species. The reviewers examined the forms attached for prioritizing culvert removal. No element appears that directly addresses response or outcome to focal species. Also, the sole habitat prioritization element appeared to be stream distance (number of miles) above the barriers, which does not account for habitat quality of newly accessible habitat for the focal species.