FY 2000 proposal 20087
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore Mill Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 20087 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Heidi Stubbers |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437406 / heidis@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Protect and enhance critical riparian areas of the Mill Creek Watershed to provide quality habitat for Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout, Bull trout, and resident fish by working with an overall watershed approach. |
| Target species | Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout, Bull trout, and Westslope Cutthroat 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 |
|---|
| 8335000 |
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery |
Supplemetation |
| 9608600 |
Clearwater Focus Coordinator
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission |
Co-coordinator for Clearwater River Subbasin |
| 9600600 |
Clearwater Focus Watershed/Co-corridinator |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607709 |
Protect and Restore Squaw & Papoose Creek Watersheds |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607711 |
Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607708 |
Protect and Restore the Lolo Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901700 |
Rehabilitate Lapwai Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901600 |
Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20086 |
Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20084 |
Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds |
was in umbrella table |
| 20085 |
Analyse and Improve Fish Screens |
was in umbrella table |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$27,860 |
| Fringe |
24% Non-Tax Exempt, Perm Staff
14% Tax-Exempt, Perm Staff |
$4,526 |
| Supplies |
Post-pounders, auger, office supplies. |
$1,200 |
| Travel |
GSA vehicle lease, perdiem, meetings |
$5,500 |
| Indirect |
22.9% |
$8,950 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$15,000 |
| $63,036 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $63,036 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $63,036 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Nez Perce National Forest |
Range, Fisheries Expertise, and Administration |
$1,000 |
unknown |
| Earth Conservation Corps/ Salmon Corps |
|
$500 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Inclement weather
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Delay funding until this project is scientifically and fiscally justified. The budget request is grossly in excess of the need. A comprehensive review of all habitat restoration activities in the Clearwater basin is needed.
Comments:
This particular proposal for Mill Creek identifies livestock damage to the stream as the primary problem, and fencing of the riparian corridor as the relevant response. Reviewers wonder whether Program funds of over $200k are necessary to construct three miles of fence. In 1998, a fencing contractor in Montana quoted $5,500 per mile for a ranch's stream-protection fence that probably wouldn't differ much from what's proposed here, suggesting a cost for 3 miles would of about $16,500. The proposal includes several statements like "working with an overall watershed approach" (in the short description) and similar statements throughout the proposal. However, there isn't much evidence in the objectives and methods that there will be any substantive coordination, and/or how the tasks relate to an overall vision of watershed restoration. The applicant also hasn't described how bad the grazing damage is, i.e.,, what is the current condition of the channel and riparian zone? Creation of a "riparian corridor" is mentioned, but there is no indication of how wide or long this corridor will be. How far from the creek will the fence be built?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Prime steelhead spawning area. Should not wait. USFS Ecosystem Analysis at Watershed Scale, USFS Landscape Analysis done. Should allotment be retired, instead of investing in fence? Will require BPA O&M. Proposal could be improved. Mill Creek is a high priority for steelhead spawning as indicated in USFS Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale and Landscape Analysis. USFS will provide administrative support, NEPA, cultural surveys, etc. under cost share agreement. Will require BPA funding for O&M. The Idaho watershed SRT believes the WTWG should change the status of this project to Yes.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The problem has persisted over the past 25 years and there are other possible solutions (e.g. eliminate grazing). The Forest Service should fund the fence.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
Comment:
Fund. This is a companion to projects 20084 and 20086; many of the original proposal deficiencies were similar, as is the response. The major deficiencies are addressed in the proposers' response, and ISRP now recommends funding. However, the reviewers continue to express concern about the budget, and urge Council to closely examine the $63,000 budget. The work consists of developing a memorandum of understanding, building 3-miles of fence, and developing a monitoring plan. Fencing cost, as stated in the response, is to be $12,000 ($4,000 per mile), which is reasonable. However, $15,000 is budgeted for a (fencing?) subcontractor. Furthermore, on-site supervision and other apparently modest tasks (MOU and monitoring plan) are to cost of about $32,000, which seems excessive. See also programmatic recommendation under projects 9706000 and 9608600.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]