FY 1999 proposal 9060

Additional documents

TitleType
9060 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Nichols Canyon Subwatershed
Proposal ID9060
OrganizationClearwater Focus Watershed Program - Idaho Soil Conservation Commission (CFWP-ISCC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJanet Hohle, Co-Coordinator
Mailing address220 E 5th St. Moscow, ID 83843
Phone / email2088820507 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionRestore 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 speciesSnake River summer chinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $33,280
Fringe $11,315
Supplies $2,500
Operating $4,500
Indirect $5,160
Subcontractor $125,000
$181,755
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$181,755
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$181,755
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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:

Technical Issue: Need to explain if more-passive alternatives to the structures exist.

Technical Issue: Need to define specific on-the-ground projects, and then present them to the CBFWA for BPA and NPPC consideration for funding.

Technical Issue: Need to incorporate the effectiveness of BMPs; what BMPs will this work initiate?


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.