FY 1999 proposal 199303501
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Enhance Fish, Riparian and Wildlife Habitat within the Red River Watershed |
Proposal ID | 199303501 |
Organization | Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District (ISWCD) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Denny Dawes |
Mailing address | Route 1 Box 102-A Princeton, ID 83857 |
Phone / email | 2088751246 / wild@potlatch.com |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 1999 |
Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
Short description | **Restore physical and biological processes to create a self-sustaining river/meadow ecosystem using a holistic approach and adaptive management principles to enhance fish, riparian, and wildlife habitat and water quality within the Red River watershed. |
Target species | Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull 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 |
|
n/a - no other projects depend on this one for funding |
n/a |
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 |
|
$333,047 |
Fringe |
|
$116,566 |
Supplies |
|
$76,300 |
Operating |
|
$25,500 |
Travel |
|
$29,555 |
Indirect |
|
$8,992 |
Subcontractor |
Wildlife Habitat Institute; Pocket Water, Inc.; LRK Communications; University of Idaho, College of Engineering; Idaho Department of Fish and Game (responsible for long-term O & M |
$0 |
| $589,960 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost | $589,960 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 1999 budget request | $589,960 |
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: **Extreme weather causing saturated soils or high flow conditions, delay in approval of the 1999 design elements or permits, extreme natural event damaging previously constructed channel features, major equipment breakdown, injury/death of consultant(s)
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: Basically, the same as the original FY98 proposal – need to provide the additional information that was provided in FY98, plus an explanation of new work in FY99 resulting from FY98 funding.Technical Issue: Explain how $1.2M is necessary for one mile of restored creek
Management Issue: Explain whether the entire goal of 4.4 miles is critical to the watershed. Seems expensive considering results and scope. Living on site and "counting every willow" are expensive approaches.
Management Issue: Put this into context of why things are being measured so intensely; and how it relates to other watershed activities in the basin – and how the information is used for local and system-wide decision-making.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Slight reduction for increased efficiencies
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The proposal’s emphasis on experimental restoration is a strength, as are the inclusion of strong monitoring and evaluation protocols, and the transferal of these to education. The methods seem unnecessarily invasive and intensive. For instance, fertilizing and irrigating plantings suggests that the plantings are not expected to be self-sustaining. BPA should look at this budget, which seems expensive for restoration of only 4.4 miles of stream.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$0 |
$99,570 |
$99,570 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website