FY 1999 proposal 199607703

Additional documents

TitleType
199607703 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleProtecting and Restoring the Squaw and Papoose Creek Watersheds
Proposal ID199607703
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 SQUAW AND PAPOOSE CREEK WATERSHEDS IS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THIS PROJECT. WE WILL ACHIEVE THIS WORKING WITHIN AN OVERALL WATERSHED APPROACH, COMPLETING FOUR OBJECTIVES IN MANY AREAS OF THE WATERSHED.
Target speciesFall Chinook, Coho, Resident Fish (Bull Trout, Cut Throat)
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 AND RESIDENT FISH.
970600 NEZ PERCE TRIBE FOCUS WATERSHED PROGRAM FOCUS PROGRAM IS CO-COORDINATED BETWEENM NPT AND STATE OF IDAHO.
9608600 IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOCUS WATERSHED PROGRAM FOCUS PROGRAM IS CO-COORDINATED BETWEEN NPT AND STATE OF IDAHO.
9809802 SALMON SUPPLEMENTATION IN IDAHO RIVERS. WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FOR ANADROMOUS AND RESIDENT FISH.

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 $58,525
Fringe $8,546
Supplies $1,263
Operating COSTS ABSORBED IN REST OF TABLE. $0
Travel $23,176
Indirect $29,398
Subcontractor Clearwater Nat’l Forest; Earth Conservation Corps/Salmon Corps at Nez Perce $111,616
Other $9,169
Other $9,169
$250,862
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$250,862
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$250,862
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:
Return to Sponsor for Revision <p>
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Management Issue: Management flag – concern about the "in-lieu" issue and the delegation of funding responsibility. The Forest Service should fund some of this work because their activities caused many of the problems.

Technical Issue: Explain how placing logs and backfill reduces surface erosion.

Technical Issue: Explain how the action proposed by this technique will not cause another failure?

Technical Issue: Explain how the costs are not excessive for road obliteration.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

These proposals (199607703 and 199607707) adequately describe the problems and the likely benefits to fish and wildlife. However, each also has some negative aspects, as detailed below. The proposals do not tell how reduction in sediment delivery will be measured. BPA should look at the budget. Is this cost sharing for BPA when Forest Service and NPT do the work and BPA is the funding source for both. It appears that in 1998, $109,328 will be spent to obliterate 10 miles of road. This is $10,900 per mile or 4 times as much as in project #9607706 (Lolo Watershed). Why the disparity?
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:
$420,000 $420,000 $420,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website