FY 2000 proposal 199901600

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
199901600 Narrative	Narrative
199901600 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Protect & Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed
Proposal ID	199901600
Organization	Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Felix M. Mcgowan
Mailing address	P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email	2088437406 / felixm@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Restore Big Canyon Creek to a more healthy and productive system which is capable of sustaining a self perpetuating population of anadromous and resident fish.
Target species	Targeted species include both A-run steelhead and Coho Salmon.

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
1999	Completed watershed assessment on Big Canyon Creek.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9608600	Clearwater Watershed Coordinator- Idaho Soil and Conervation District	Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin
9600600	Clearwater Watershed Coordinator- Nez Perce Tribe	Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin
9901700	Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed	was in umbrella table
9607711	Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed	was in umbrella table
9607708	Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed	was in umbrella table
9607709	Protect and Restore Squaw to Papoose Watersheds	was in umbrella table
9607707	Focus Watershed Coordinator	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
20086	Rehabilitate Newsome Creek	was in umbrella table
20087	Protect and Restore Mill Creek	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		$26,380
Fringe		$6,332
Supplies		$2,500
Travel		$2,380
Indirect		$9,184
Other	Vehicle costs	$2,500
Subcontractor		$12,000
		$61,276

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$61,276
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$61,276
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Due to inclimate weather and land ownership within the watershed there may be some schedule constraints.

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 the monitoring and evaluation plan is strengthened. A comprehensive review of all habitat restoration activities in the Clearwater basin is needed.

Comments: This particular (Big Canyon Creek) proposal identifies logging activities, and associated flood damage (largely sedimentation and erosion related) during the late 1995 floods, as the primary habitat problem in the basin. Although roads are identified as the source of 60% of the sediment delivery to the creek, apparently no road mitigation measures are to be undertaken (as they are in companion projects). Instead, the project focuses on riparian fencing, revegetation, and removal of livestock from the riparian corridor as the primary mitigation measures. Reviewers wonder whether the project can hope to be successful if the sediment problem is not addressed. Furthermore, the proposal doesn't tell how many miles of stream and fence are involved, nor does it describe the riparian zone or justify the need for plantings. Statements like that made in Section 8a, paragraph 1—". . . due to man made [sic] influences the stream can no longer act as efficiently as it once did." are meaningless. Efficiently in what respect? What are the units of stream efficiency? In the same paragraph, fecal coliform are mentioned. Why? What do they do to fish?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Implementation specifics and BMP efficiency will result from the completion of the watershed assessment being completed in 1999.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Proposal needs more specific information on project implementation.

The relationship between Objectives 2 and 3 is unclear. The kind of monitoring proposed in Objective 2 is not needed to carry out Objective 3.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 99-4)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 29, 1999

Comment:

Fund. The responses are generally adequate. It seems a bit inconsistent that the stream (apparently including the project area) is characterized as an "outstanding Steelhead resource," yet water temperature is viewed as such a critical limiting factor that artificial planting must be done to "speed up the process of providing shade and large woody debris inputs to the creek." As for large woody debris, it will probably take many decades for any significant amount of it to start being generated from the newly-protected riparian area, whether or not planting is done, so a several-year delay to let natural revegetation get started doing the job for free may not make much difference. Regarding water temperature, if the stream is so outstanding for steelhead, temperature must not be so limiting as to warrant trying to accelerate the natural revegetation (which sponsor says will eventually happen) following control of disturbances within the riparian corridor. Sponsor should quantify the present thermal regime and predict the likely reduction of temperature that would occur as a result of artificial and natural revegetation, prior to initiating revegetation attempts. Absent strong justification to the contrary, natural revegetation should be the first choice before resorting to costly artificial revegetation. This appears to be a very worthy project otherwise. See also programmatic recommendations under projects 9706000 and 9608600.

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:
$237,759	$237,759	$237,759

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website