FY 1999 proposal 9120

Additional documents

TitleType
9120 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleProtecting and Restoring Big Canyon Creek Watershed
Proposal ID9120
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameIra Jones
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437406 / iraj@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionProtect and restore the Big Canyon Creek and watershed by working within an overall watershed approach, completing objectives in many areas of the watershed.
Target speciesA-B run steelhead, Fall Chinook
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 $65,280
Fringe $17,625
Supplies $3,000
Travel $2,500
Indirect $25,814
Subcontractor $324,000
Other $3,240
$441,459
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$441,459
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$441,459
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: Existing schedules for the 1999 budtget year may change due to weather conditions. All on the ground projects occur in mountainous areas at elevations up to 5500 feet above sea level, where unpredictable weather patterns may occur.


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 define specific on-the-ground projects, and present them to the CBFWA for BPA and NPPC consideration for funding

Technical Issue: Need to clearly explain why this action is appropriate for an unstable watershed.

Management Issue: Explain how this project is coordinated with the surrounding projects associated with the designated Clearwater Focus Watershed.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Half of budget deferred due to budget constraints
Recommendation:
Inadequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal lacks adequate scientific detail and justification. There is no evidence that the project is cast in the context of the watershed. The stated methods of stream habitat work are not well chosen and the proposal does not establish that personnel are qualified to do the proposed work. Some of the methods are of unproven benefit to fish and are more likely to do the opposite. In particular, there is overemphasis on using engineered structures and non-native plants. The proposal does not show how the work will benefit fish. The plan also does not seem to have enough emphasis on fencing (livestock exclusion and control), as it suggests that plantings are expected to be damaged by domestic livestock. No evidence is presented that the planting is needed. If livestock are fenced out, plants usually establish successfully. Restoring a more natural stream course (channel pattern) is not mentioned, e.g., relocating the channel, which has apparently been straightened, into old meanders or otherwise giving it more sinuosity. Restoring meanders and fencing might do most of what is needed to restore proper fish habitat, and the elaborately engineered structures might not be needed. Merely "stabilizing" stream banks is not very beneficial for fish if the stream course is too straight or otherwise the wrong shape. It is not clear how many miles of stream will be treated, but appears to be 4 miles. If so, $814,000 is a lot of money—over $200,000 per mile. This proposal sounds like a road project; is this appropriate for BPA funding?