FY 2000 proposal 199607711

Additional documents

TitleType
199607711 Narrative Narrative
199607711 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore Mccomas Meadow/ Meadow Creek Watershed
Proposal ID199607711
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameHeidi Stubbers
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437406 / heidis@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionRestore, enhance, and protect the diveristy of physical and biological characteristics of Meadow Creek and associated wetland area to provide quality habitat for Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout by working with an overall watershed approach.
Target speciesSpring Chinook, Steelhead, and Resident Fish
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
1996 Salmon Corps removes 4 miles of posts, rails, and barb wire fence
1997 Construct 3.0 miles of riparian fence
1998 Finish fence construction (0.5 miles)
1998 Monitor existing riparian fence
1998 Install water table wells for groundwater monitoring

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Supplementation
9607701 Meadow Creek Restoration - Idaho Research/Education Project
9608600 Clearwater Focus Corrdinator Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Co-coordinator for Clearwater River Subbasin
9600600 Clearwater Focus Watershed/ Co-coordinators was in umbrella table
9607708 Protect & Restore the Lolo Creek Watershed was in umbrella table
9607709 Protect & Restore Squaw & Papoose Creek Waterhseds 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 Mill 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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $55,680
Fringe 14% Tax-Exempt, Permanent Staff 24% Non-Tax-Exempt Perm. Staff $12,018
Supplies Office supplies, Tree planting augers and bars, Container Seedlings, Cold Storage, Thermograph $7,800
NEPA Sub-contract $50,000
Travel $15,000
Indirect 22.9% $20,724
Other Equipment - camera $400
Subcontractor $5,000
$166,622
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$166,622
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$166,622
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Earth Conservation Corps/ Salmon Corps Management of Labor - tree planting $500 unknown
Nez Perce National Forest Ecology, Hydrology, Fisheries, and NEPA Support $20,000 unknown
University of Idaho Professional Faculity support. $5,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Severe/Inclement weather, NEPA analysis, and permits for irrigation ditch obliteration.


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 a connection to fish benefits is demonstrated and the monitoring and evaluation plan is strengthened. A comprehensive review of all habitat restoration activities in the Clearwater basin is needed.

Comments: This particular proposal for Meadow Creek identifies overgrazing and conversion of meadows to pasture, with associated development of irrigation ditches (within the McComas Meadow), as the primary habitat problem in the basin. High road density is also identified as a problem. Removal of irrigation ditches, riparian fencing and restoration of riparian vegetation are identified as the relevant response measures. However, the proposal doesn't describe the riparian zone or justify the need for plantings. Reviewers had such questions as: What is the prognosis for natural regrowth of vegetation? Why won't that suffice? Is a NEPA analysis really needed for a fence and some plantings? Why despite identification of high road density as a problem, is it that no measures are being undertaken to mitigate road effects?

Although there is a strong Monitoring and Evaluation component to the project, specifics of the monitoring design are missing. In particular, what long-term data are being collected to document reductions in stream temperature that should result from the restoration efforts? What is the sediment monitoring program? The panel noted that the monitoring program is absent any emphasis on fish and associated biological conditions, which are supposed to be the primary focus of the program.

Finally, the project cost seems excessive with respect to what is intended to be accomplished for the fish and their stream. The university role seems inconsistent with the practical goals of the project; why are university professors needed to install fences?


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Will require some BPA funding for O&M. Cost-effectiveness is a policy decision, however, the NEPA is a maximum estimate. If NEPA cost is less, we will work with our CTOR to put excess dollars on-the-ground. Again, WTWG comments are based on policy, not technical review. 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 should consider eliminating grazing.

Considerable concern about cost effectiveness. $50,000 for NEPA is excessive.

This project should fall under a "Categorical Exclusion" and would benefit from more on-the-ground work.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed the most ISRP questions and comments adequately. See also programmatic recommendation under project 9706000.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]