FY 1999 proposal 9118

Additional documents

TitleType
9118 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore West Fork Little Bear Creek For Steelhead
Proposal ID9118
OrganizationPalouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute (PCEI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameThomas C. Lamar
Mailing addressP.O. Box 8596 Moscow, ID 83843
Phone / email2088821444 / lamar@pcei.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionRestoring natural/wild steelhead/rainbow trout to the upper reaches of the West Fork of Little Bear Creek will be accomplished through the biophysical restoration of those reaches of the West Fork of Little Bear Creek that have been urbanized.
Target species
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 Coordination staff $40,000
Fringe $8,000
Supplies Geotextiles, Plants, Revetments $100,000
Travel Local Travel $2,000
Indirect %10 $47,000
Subcontractor Terragraphics Environmental Engineering; City of Troy $20,000
Other $300,000
Other $300,000
$817,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$817,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$817,000
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: Permitting


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: Objective 4 is troubling because it appears that the proposed action should first be to construct the "functional floodplain." Explain how "re-constructing" a floodplain does not adversely affect fish and wildlife.

Technical Issue: Need to more clearly describe specifically what work will be performed and why.

Technical Issue: Explain how the budget is necessary for fixing the problem.

Technical Issue: Need to clearly explain what the critical limiting factors in the watershed are.

Technical Issue: Explain if the proposed action is an interim measure (Band-Aid approach), and if so, how this action is not contradictory to other present or future actions. Explain how the other factors in the watershed - specifically, those in the headwaters – contribute to causing the problem – and are being addressed in this proposal so that this action is presented in a watershed context.

Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is poorly written and does not describe how it fits into salmonid recovery in the Columbia River Basin. The problem is not well described nor is the number of miles of stream that are to be treated. As proposed, this project could result in a cycle of construct-flood-construct. The causes of the destruction should be addressed.