FY 1999 proposal 199303501

Additional documents

TitleType
199303501 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEnhance Fish, Riparian and Wildlife Habitat within the Red River Watershed
Proposal ID199303501
OrganizationIdaho County Soil and Water Conservation District (ISWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDenny Dawes
Mailing addressRoute 1 Box 102-A Princeton, ID 83857
Phone / email2088751246 / wild@potlatch.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower 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 speciesChinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout
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
n/a - no other projects depend on this one for funding n/a

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 $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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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