FY 2000 proposal 199901400

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
199901400 Narrative	Narrative
199901400 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed
Proposal ID	199901400
Organization	Clearwater Focus Watershed Program - Idaho Soil Conservation Commission (ISCC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Janet Hohle, ISCC (watershed co-coordinator)
Mailing address	220 East 5th Street, Rm 212 Moscow, ID 83843
Phone / email	2088820507 / jhohle@agri.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Restore steelhead trout habitat in Little Canyon Creek subwatershed that are affected by upland agricultural land uses by implementing agricultural best management practices and coordinating ISCC, NRCS, and BPA funding sources.
Target species	Oncorhynchus mykiss

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
	Implementation of Fiscal Year 1999 will begin later in the fiscal year.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9901600	Protecting and restoring Big Canyon Creek Watershed	Nez Perce Tribe Focus Program has a project in the watershed.
9011	Characterize & Quantify Residual Steelhead in Clearwater River, Idaho	USFWS research project in mainstem and tributaries.
9608600	Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - ISCC
9901500	Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Nichols Canyon Subwatershed
9901400	Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed

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	1 FTE Conservationist	$33,280
Fringe	@33%	$11,315
Supplies		$2,500
Operating	Vehicle Costs	$4,500
NEPA		$1,000
Indirect	@10%	$5,260
Subcontractor	BMP Implementation	$160,000
		$217,855

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$217,855
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$217,855
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
BLM	Water quality monitoring	$4,225	unknown
IASCD	Water quality monitoring	$4,225	unknown
DEQ/ISCC	SAWQP upper watershed	$80,282	unknown

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: 1) Time needed to comply with NMFS consultation requirements to comply with NEPA and ESA, 2) Subcontractor availability, 3) Extreme precipitation during implementation phase (August through November) that may affect access to project areas.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Delay Funding

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until they demonstrate relation to fish and wildlife and include a clear statement of overall objectives of this project, the relationship of project objectives to overall basin restoration objectives, as well as timelines, and a rationale (prioritization via a watershed assessment) indicating why specific elements are being undertaken, and in what order. A comprehensive review, via a visiting committee, of all habitat restoration projects within the Clearwater basin is needed.

Comments: This is proposal for continuation (second year) of habitat improvements in the Little Canyon Creek watershed, a tributary of the Clearwater. The focus of the project is on water quality improvements to mitigate agricultural nonpoint source pollution. The proposers argue that most water quality problems are traceable to agricultural development on previously timbered, and highly erodable, soils. The proposers argue for an overall approach that focuses on these upland source areas, and outline a set of procedures for implementing a program of BMPs directed at private landowners. Some of the detailed statements of methods are made overly complicated by inclusion of background information (problem descriptions) which should have been in the technical-scientific background section. Task b of the monitoring scheme is too vague, especially since it is supposed to encompass the most important evaluation criterion of the project: an analysis of "riparian functions" and of fish population responses. "Fish surveys" is not an adequate description of method. The monitoring of a landscape-healing project such as this one should include broader measurements of biological integrity of the stream ecosystem than just fish population levels. For all its laudable aspects, the proposal makes the project appear (and perhaps the project really is) just a rote application of supposed BMPs without knowing or understanding their effect. How will the proposers know if the specific measures being undertaken are really "best" for the riparian zone, for the stream, and for the stream's organisms, including the fish? As in Proposal 9706000, there is no biologist on the project staff, so the biological effectiveness can not be accounted for. The lack of biologists' input on and participation in this project is a serious shortcoming. This proposal does not appear to be tied to a previous watershed assessment effort, so that the proposed work, while perhaps meritorious, cannot be evaluated in the broader context

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Proposal is more complete than last year, but still lacks project implementation specifics.

BMP efficacy is questionable in this watershed.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. See also projects 9608600 and 9706000. The recommendation of ISRP, in its June 15 FY2000 report was to "delay funding" due to concerns about whether a watershed assessment had previously been performed, whether the work was properly coordinated, and whether there was sufficient biological justification. The biological justification is still somewhat tenuous – essentially to the effect of "if you build it they will come". The question of biological relevance/justification, however, is not particular to this project. The ISRP would like the sponsors to consider the biological context, and a monitoring strategy, for this and its companion watershed restoration projects within the Clearwater. However, it recognizes that most of the work will of necessity be focused predominantly on physical mitigation of habitat, via instream work, streamside vegetation, control of sediment production via removal of roads, and the like. Furthermore, the sponsors' response addresses most of the deficiencies of the original proposal with respect to prioritization and scheduling of project activities, and qualifications of personnel. ISRP therefore now recommends that the project be funded.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

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

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:
$206,500	$206,500	$206,500

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website