FY 2000 proposal 199607711
Contents
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 |
---|---|
199607711 Narrative | Narrative |
199607711 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Restore Mccomas Meadow/ Meadow Creek Watershed |
Proposal ID | 199607711 |
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 | Restore, 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 species | Spring Chinook, Steelhead, and Resident Fish |
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 |
---|---|
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 ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
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
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 | $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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
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?
Comment:
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.Technically Sound? No
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.
Comment:
Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed the most ISRP questions and comments adequately. See also programmatic recommendation under project 9706000.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]