FY 2000 proposal 199607708
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore the Lolo Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 199607708 |
| 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, restore, and enhance the Lolo Creek Watershed to provide quality habitat for Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead trout, Pacific Lamprey, and resident fish. This will be accomplished by working with an overall watershed approach. |
| Target species | Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead trout, Pacific Lamprey and resident fish. |
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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1997 |
Construct 3.1 miles of fence for riparian and cultural protection. |
| 1997 |
Construct 0.5 miles fence to protect a prime spawning area |
| 1997 |
Completed 12 miles of road obliteration consisting of erosion control, re-vegetation, fertilizing, and placing of woody debris. |
| 1998 |
Maintenance and monitoring of construction of 3.1 miles of riparian fence. |
| 1998 |
Construction of 10 miles of riparian protection fence. |
| 1998 |
Installation of two cattleguards. |
| 1998 |
Installation of one off-site watering development to keep grazing in the uplands and out of the riparian areas. |
| 1998 |
Completed 15 miles of road obliteration, consisting of contouring the roadbeds back to their natural slope, re-vegetation, fertilization, and placing of woody debris. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 8335000 |
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery |
Supplementation |
| 9608600 |
Clearwater Focus Coordinator
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission |
Co-coordinator for Clearwater River Subbasin |
| 9600600 |
Clearwater Focus Watershed/Co-coordinators |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607709 |
Protect & Restore Squaw & Papoose Creek Watersheds |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607711 |
Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901700 |
Rehabilitate Lapwai Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901600 |
Protect & Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20087 |
Protect and Restore Mill Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20085 |
Analyze and Improve Fish Screens |
was in umbrella table |
| 20086 |
Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20084 |
Protect and Restore North Lochsa Face Watershed Analysis Area |
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 |
|
$85,615 |
| Fringe |
14% Tax-Exempt, Perm. Staff
24% Non-Tax-Exempt, Perm. Staff |
$15,455 |
| Supplies |
Office supplies, Planting bars/augers, seed, erosion control matting, vegetation. |
$5,550 |
| Construction |
Excavator operator ($6,000)--Subcontract |
$9,500 |
| Travel |
GSA vehicle lease, Training, Conferences and perdiem costs. |
$32,680 |
| Indirect |
22.9% |
$31,950 |
| Subcontractor |
Road Obliteration Monitoring & Fence Materials |
$23,000 |
| $203,750 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $203,750 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $203,750 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Clearwater National Forest |
Road obliteration monitoring, Fisheries Expertise |
$8,100 |
unknown |
| Earth Conservation Corps/Salmon Corps |
Labor - tree planting & assistance with monitoring |
$500 |
unknown |
| Potlatch Corportation |
Bank Stabilization, re-vegetation administration |
$4,100 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Severe/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 the monitoring and evaluation plan is described in greater detail. This is not a scientifically adequate proposal. A comprehensive review of all habitat restoration activities in the Clearwater basin is needed.
Comments:
This particular proposal for Lolo Creek identifies cattle grazing in the stream corridor as the primary problem, and fencing of the riparian corridor as the relevant response. About 13 miles of fencing have already been installed. The proposal also identifies stream bank stability as a habitat problem, and revegetation as the response. How much stream will be protected? How much (more, if any) fence will be built/repaired? How far is/will the fence be from the channel? What is the evidence that planting is needed at all? What is the present density of key or beneficial plants? An M&E objective related to road obliteration is included, but reviewers cannot find mention of what roads, if any, have or will be retired. Given that the fencing has already been accomplished, reviewers wonder why continuing expenditures of over $0.5M through 2004 are required. Certainly, M&E is necessary, but those activities should not be nearly as expensive as the budget suggests. Finally, for such a simple task, why are university professors needed? What are they going to do?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This is a state, Potlatch, USFS, private, tribal, and permittee cost-share project. Will require BPA funding for O&M. Treatment design will be completed during 1999 field season. The WTWG review comments are policy related, not technical. The 1855 treaty gives the Nez Perce regulatory authority to protect, restore, and enhance all resources. 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:
This is another example of a BPA-funded watershed program operating on Forest Service land to repair damage resulting from Forest Service land management practices. The Forest Service is still logging the drainage.Need more on-the-ground projects. Specifics on treatments are lacking.
Forest Service should fund restoration and road obliteration.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
Comment:
Fund. In general the proposers' responses adequately address the review comments. However, justification for the vegetation planting tasks is inadequate, and that aspect of the project should be deleted. In particular, the sponsor cites the 68-degree Fish and Wildlife Program standard for maximum spawning-rearing water temperature, and reports that the water exceeds that in summer (but not how often and how much). It is then claimed that riparian planting will "immediately" reduce those temperatures—which is clearly an exaggeration. The sponsor neglects to say why natural regeneration of bushes—which will surely occur for free—will not be more cost-effective. Unnecessary planting is commonly done in stream habitat restoration projects. Sponsor also refers to a need for a vegetation filter strip to impede flow of nutrients and pesticides toward the stream, but bushes and trees are much less effective in this function than are grasses, sedges, forbs and so on, which usually develop very rapidly on their own. The sponsor has provided no evidence that the proper vegetation cannot be expected to do the job as it normally does within a few years once disturbance of the riparian corridor is controlled.. The funds that would be required for planting would probably have much greater stream-restorative effect if spent on control of riparian disturbance, e.g. by fencing or reducing upland abuses. See also programmatic recommendations 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]