Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protecting and Restoring Big Canyon Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 9120 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ira Jones |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437406 / iraj@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Protect and restore the Big Canyon Creek and watershed by working within an overall watershed approach, completing objectives in many areas of the watershed. |
| Target species | A-B run steelhead, Fall Chinook |
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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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 fundingTechnical 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?