FY 1999 proposal 9163

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
9163 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	West Fork Squaw Creek Fish Passage Project
Proposal ID	9163
Organization	USDA Forest Service, Clearwater National Forest (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	James Capurso
Mailing address	Powell Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest Lol, MT 59847
Phone / email	2089423113 / JimCapurso@aol.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Lower Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Replace an impassable culvert at the mouth of West Fork Squaw Creek with a Bridge. The Creek historically supported populations of chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout. The project would open apprxly 5 miles of stream.
Target species

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 1999 cost
Supplies		$100,000
Subcontractor		$0
		$100,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$100,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$100,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: There will be no constraints which would cause schedule changes.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Pass (Fundable)

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Management Issue: Need more detail on whether other alternatives (e.g., other types of culverts) were considered that may be cheaper than a bridge.

Management Issue: Management issue – evaluate if this USFS funding is the appropriate allocation.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Defer

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is straight-forward and clear, and the project should be of value to fish. It includes a good description of the problem and of the habitat to be made available, but is brief on methods. The proposal should cite the abundant literature on culvert problems and solutions for fish. It should describe how or why the proposed bridge will be adequate, though it is expected that it will be far better than the culvert. It was not clear to reviewers that this work should be eligible for BPA funds.