Return to Proposal Finder FY 1999 Proposal 9120

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Protecting and Restoring Big Canyon Creek Watershed
BPA Project Proposal Number 9120
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program
Business acronym (if appropriate) NPT

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Ira Jones
Mailing Address P.O. Box 365
City, State, Zip Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone 2088437406
Fax 2088437322
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 1999
Province Lower Snake
Subbasin Clearwater
Short Description Protect and restore the Big Canyon Creek and watershed by working within an overall watershed approach, completing objectives in many areas of the watershed.
Target Species A-B run steelhead, Fall Chinook

Project Location

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses:
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Stabilize Stream Banks, Produce Fish and Wildlife Cover and Improve Water Temperature Within the Big Canyon Creek Watershed. a. Coordinate with various involved agencies on riparian protection fence to be built.
. b. Build Riparian Protection Fence
. c. Operation and maintenance of riparian protection fence
. d. Coordinate with various involved agencies on bank stabilization of high risk stream meander blowouts.
. e. Stabilize Stream meanders
. f. coordinate with various involved agencies on riparian bank and stream re-vegetation.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 05/01/99 12/01/99 100.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 1999 Cost
Personnel $ 65,280
Fringe $ 17,625
Supplies $ 3,000
Travel $ 2,500
Indirect $ 25,814
Subcontractor $324,000
Other $ 3,240
Total Itemized Budget $441,459

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 project cost $441,459
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 1999 budget request $441,459
FY 1999 forecast from 1998 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Not applicable

Outyear Budget Totals

2000 2001 2002 2003
All Phases $250,000 $100,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
Total Outyear Budgets $250,000 $100,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Existing schedules for the 1999 budtget year may change due to weather conditions. All on the ground projects occur in mountainous areas at elevations up to 5500 feet above sea level, where unpredictable weather patterns may occur.

Section 6. References

n/a or no information

Section 7. Abstract


Big Canyon Creek has historically supported A-run Steelhead and resident trout populations but because of commercial, agricultural, natural events and transportation activities it has become a low functioning stream. Peck road runs parallels to its channel causing the stream to be channelized for more than 4 miles. Stream reaches that are not channelized were heavily damaged in the 1996 flood event, which caused riparian vegetation to up-root, gravel’s were deposited, stream banks eroded and stream was forced out of its original stream channel. Following the flood, dozers and backhoes were allowed to enter the stream channel without restriction or regard for fisheries habitat protection. The flood in combination with stream excavation, intended to abate future flood impacts, have compounded the damage done to fisheries habitat.

Reviews and Recommendations

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

This project has not yet been reviewed

Return to top of page