FY 1999 proposal 199607702

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
199607702 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Protecting and Restoring the Lolo Creek Watershed
Proposal ID	199607702
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	PROTECTING 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 species	Spring Chinook, Lamprey, Steelhead, Coho

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
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

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		$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 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 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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

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