Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed |
| Proposal ID | 9059 |
| Organization | Clearwater Focus Watershed Program - Idaho Soil Conservation Commission (CFWP-ISCC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Janet Hohle, Co-Coordinator |
| Mailing address | 220 E 5th St. Moscow, ID 83843 |
| Phone / email | 2088820507 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Restore anadromous fish habitat affected by upland agricultural land uses through the implementation of best management practices on private lands located within the exterior boundaries of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation. |
| Target species | Steelhead Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$33,280 |
| Fringe |
|
$11,315 |
| Supplies |
|
$2,500 |
| Operating |
|
$4,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$5,059 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$140,000 |
| $196,654 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $196,654 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $196,654 |
| 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: The first constraint to this project would be the timing of funding approval because the significant portion of implementation requires working access to the subwatershed by the landowner/operator subcontractors. A second constraint, related to the first, would be availability of landowner/operator supplied equipment and labor to implement contracts relative to project approval and farming schedule needs.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Management Issue: Need to explain if less-structural alternatives to the structures were addressed.Technical Issue: Need to define specific on-the-ground projects, and present them to the CBFWA for BPA and NPPC consideration for funding
Technical Issue: Need to incorporate the effectiveness of BMPs – e.g., what BMPs will this work implement?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
Although the proposed work should be worth doing, and undoubtedly could do a lot of good if well-implemented, the proposals [9059 and 9060] lack plans to measure (1) amount of soil prevented from entering the stream, (2) improvement in fish habitat, and (3) improvement in fish populations. A "predictive model" is probably inadequate for evaluation. The scientific basis for the work is not adequately described, although the effort may benefit fish and wildlife. What is the plan for inspection and compliance after year 5? Cost seems very high for a volunteer effort. The revision included more information on best management practices but did not provide sufficient details overall. The sampling locations for monitoring are not specified. Monitoring of fish redds is not described. The expected result is decreased sediment delivery, but the plan to monitor this is inadequate.