Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore Mill Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 200003600 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Heidi Mcroberts |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437406 / heidim@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ira Jones |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Ongoing |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Protect and enhance critical riparian areas of the Mill Creek Watershed to restore quality habitat for chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, and resident fish, by working within an overall watershed approach. |
| Target species | |
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 |
|---|
| 2000 |
PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS |
|
Construction of 4 miles of riparian/stream protection/cattle exclusion fence |
|
Installation of monitoring stations |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Finalize project coordination with the Nez Perce National Forest. |
a. Develop partnering agreement defining responsibilities of each entity. |
1FY / on-going |
$1,598 |
|
| 1. |
b. Coordinate project logistics with the Nez Perce National Forest |
1FY / on-going |
$1,597 |
|
| 2. Stabilize roads which are negatively impacting the stream. |
a. Develop an engineered design to stabilize roads which are delivering excess sediment to the stream. |
1FY / on-going
|
$16,721 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $29,100 | $24,100 | $26,500 | $21,900 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Construct fence to protect the riparian corridor and critical spawning areas. |
a. Conduct a site visit prior to fence construction to establish fence placement. |
1
|
$5,251 |
|
| 1. |
b. Purchase fencing materials. |
1 |
$12,519 |
Yes |
| 1. |
c. Construct fence. |
3 |
$36,056 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $78,800 | $65,100 | $71,650 | $59,200 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Maintain cattle exclusion fence. |
a. Repair any damages to the fence. |
1FY / on-going |
$8,822 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $12,900 | $10,700 | $11,750 | $9,700 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Monitor success of excluding cattle and the regeneration of riparian vegetation. |
a. Collect data related to regeneration of riparian vegetation. |
1FY / on-going |
$1,700 |
|
| 1. |
b. Collect physical stream characteristic data, such as discharge, temperature, and water quality parameters. |
1FY / on-going |
$8,558 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $15,000 | $12,400 | $13,650 | $11,250 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 2 |
$3,510 |
| Fringe |
30% |
$1,053 |
| Travel |
GSA Vehicles and Per Diem |
$900 |
| Indirect |
26.61% |
$1,453 |
| NEPA |
|
$3,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Engineering design for road stabilization |
$10,000 |
| Personnel |
FTE: 2 |
$26,320 |
| Fringe |
30% |
$7,896 |
| Supplies |
Fencing supplies, hardware |
$1,000 |
| Travel |
GSA Vehicles & Per Diem |
$3,000 |
| Indirect |
26.61% |
$9,610 |
| Subcontractor |
Fencing materials |
$6,000 |
| Personnel |
FTE: 2 |
$4,360 |
| Fringe |
30% |
$1,308 |
| Supplies |
Fence supplies, hardware |
$1,000 |
| Travel |
GSA vehicle and Per Diem |
$300 |
| Indirect |
26.61% |
$1,854 |
| Personnel |
FTE: 2 |
$5,002 |
| Fringe |
30% |
$1,500 |
| Supplies |
Monitoring supplies |
$1,000 |
| Travel |
GSA Vehicles & Per Diem |
$600 |
| Indirect |
26.61 % |
$2,156 |
| $92,822 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $92,822 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $92,822 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $50,000 |
| % change from forecast | 85.6% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
The reason for change in the estimated budget is that through the development of a Watershed Assessment (Hungary Mill, NPNF), the main system road which begins at the mouth of the watershed was identifies as a source of sediment problems in the watershed. The road travels along the stream for the first six miles, beginning at the mouth. This work will require the development of an engineered design. A consultant will be hired, and NEPA will have to be completed. Additionally, the movement of a cattle corral was identified as a high priority. Currently, the streams runs through the center of the corral.
Reason for change in scope
As mentioned above, a watershed assessment has identified the main system road as a source of sediment to the watershed. Restoration and road maintenance will provide sediment abatement, in turn resulting in improved habitat for critical species within the watershed.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: yes
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
Comment:
The reason for change in the estimated budget is that through the development of a Watershed Assessment (Hungary Mill, NPNF), the main system road, which begins at the mouth of the watershed, was identified as a source of sediment problems in the watershed. The road travels along the stream for the first six miles, beginning at the mouth. This work will require the development of an engineered design (Section 3, Objective 2). A consultant will be hired, and NEPA will have to be completed. Restoration and road maintenance will provide sediment abatement, in turn resulting in improved habitat for critical species within the watershed. Additionally, the movement of a cattle corral was identified as a high priority. Currently, the stream runs through the center of the corral.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
Comment:
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: |
| $80,096 |
$80,096 |
$80,096 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website