FY 1999 proposal 199607702

Additional documents

TitleType
199607702 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleProtecting and Restoring the Lolo Creek Watershed
Proposal ID199607702
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 descriptionPROTECTING AND RESTORING THE LOLO CREEK WATERSHED WITHIN THE CLEARWATER SUBBASIN IS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THIS PROJECT. WE WILL ACHIEVE THIS WORKING WITHIN AN OVERALL WATERSHED APPROACH, COMPLETING FIVE OBJECTIVES IN MANY AREAS OF THE WATERSHED.
Target speciesSpring Chinook, Lamprey, Steelhead, Coho
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
83350 NEZ PERCE TRIBAL HATCHERY WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FOR ANADROMOUS FISH.
970600 NEZ PERCE TRIBE FOCUS WATERSHED PROGRAM FOCUS PROGRAM IS CO-COORDINATED BETWEEN NPT AND STATE OF IDAHO.
9608600 IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOCUS WATERSHED PROGRAM FOCUS PROGRAM IS CO-COORDINATED BETWEEN NPT AND STATE OF IDAHO.

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 $67,797
Fringe $6,123
Supplies $2,680
Operating COST ABSORBED IN REST OF TABLE. $0
Travel $20,225
Indirect $38,462
Subcontractor Clearwater Nat’l Forest; Earth Conservation Corps/Salmon Corps at Nez Perce; Idaho Department of Lands; Potlatch Corp Headquaters; Private Permittee $216,926
Other $8,849
Other $8,849
Other $8,849
Other $8,849
Other $8,849
Other $8,849
$405,307
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$405,307
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$405,307
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 BUDGET 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:
Pass (Fundable)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Management Issue: Management flag – concern about the "in-lieu" issue and the delegation of funding responsibility (is this an example of BPA funding replacing a USFS responsibility?). The Forest Service should fund some of this work because their activities caused many of the problems.

Technical Issue: Need more detail on specifically which parameters will be monitored and evaluated to determine if the expected results are being achieved.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

These proposals (199607702 and 199607706) adequately describe the problems and the likely benefits to fish and wildlife. However, each also has some negative aspects, as detailed below. Methods for measuring reduced sediment delivery to the stream are not adequately described. This proposal lacks a good monitoring plan. The watershed analysis should be done before the restoration activities, not after. The roads that will be de-commissioned are not well described. Do these roads cause the sediment problems?
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:
$252,638 $252,638 $252,638

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website