FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28060
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 |
|---|---|
| 28060 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28060 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| National Water and Climate Center Technical Note 99-1: Stream Visual Assessment Protocol | Response Attachment |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess Stream Quality for Salmonid Recovery in the Lower Clearwater Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 28060 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation Distric (Nez Perce SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Deb Koziol |
| Mailing address | 3113 East Main Lewiston, Idaho 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087469886 / Deb.Koziol@id.usda.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Kyle J. Wilson, Chair, NPSWCD |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Complete a stream health assessment in order to identify priority areas for fish habitat restoration. |
| Target species | Snake River Steelhead (ESU - threatened), Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (ESU-threatened) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.45 | -116.8 | Lower Clearwater |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 151 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 183 | NMFS | Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199608600 | Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Clearwater Focus Program | This project implements the goals and objectives of this program. |
| 19970600 | Nez Perce Tribal Focus Watershed Program | This project implements the goals and objectives of this program. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess the stream health of 6 watersheds | A. Identify landowners | .0.02 | $2,000 | |
| B. Develop a GIS based land ownership coverage identifying specific landowners and tracts | $4,000 | Yes | ||
| C. Compile maps, select sites, determine access needs. | .02 | $2,000 | ||
| D. Obtain access to assessment sites. | .02 | $2,000 | ||
| E. Advertise and select field crew | .02 | $2,000 | ||
| F. Train field Crew | 0.06 | $4,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess the stream health of 6 watersheds | 3 | 3 | $4,500 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $4,500 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess the stream health of 6 watersheds. | G. Collect field data. | 1.2 | $52,000 | |
| H. Analyze Data | .2 | $6,148 | ||
| I. Complete a final report | .2 | $6,000 | ||
| I. Complete a final report - publishing | $5,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess the stream health of 6 watersheds | 3 | 4 | $47,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $39,000 | $12,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Monitor stream temperature within the project area watersheds. | A. Collect stream temperature data. | .2 | $5,000 | |
| B. Compile stream temperature data and distribute report. | .2 | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Monitor stream temperature within the project area watersheds. | 3 | 4 | $14,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $7,000 | $7,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2.34 | $53,748 |
| Fringe | 34% | $10,000 |
| Supplies | $7,000 | |
| Travel | $7,000 | |
| Indirect | 10% | $9,400 |
| Subcontractor | $8,000 | |
| $95,148 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $95,148 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $95,148 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NRCS | training | $6,000 | in-kind |
| IDFG | training, SVAP protocol review | $6,000 | in-kind |
| DEQ | coordinate temperature monitoring | $2,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. Project goal is to complete a stream health assessment in order to identify priority areas for fish habitat restoration using the SVAP protocol - stream visual assessment protocol (NRCS) - in six very small Clearwater mainstem tributaries. The Clearwater Watershed Assessment does not get to the needed resolution on these small streams. An earlier demonstration project in Hatwai Creek has proven to be very effective in engaging local landowners. The initially reluctantly participating landowner in Hatwai Creek realized economic gains to his operation (as well as the predicted biological gains) became one of the project's greatest advocates.A response is needed to provide additional information on the SVAP method of the NRCS. Additionally, more discussion of how the assessment information will be used to identify prioritized restoration alternatives.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable (relatively low priority) if local watershed councils are formed as part of this project in conjunction with the Clearwater Focus Program and the Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program. The project goal is to complete a stream health assessment in order to identify priority areas for fish habitat restoration using the SVAP - stream visual assessment protocol (NRCS) - in six small lower Clearwater mainstem tributaries. The Clearwater Watershed Assessment does not get to the needed resolution on these small streams.The primary value of the project is educational, performing the sorely-needed role of involving private landowners who will be pivotal in any continued rehabilitation of these six streams that produce wild A-run steelhead. An earlier demonstration project in Hatwai Creek has proven to be very effective in engaging local landowners.
The SVAP may be a good educational and public involvement tool, but elsewhere by itself its snapshot approach has added virtually nothing to what is already known. To keep that from occurring, proponents of this project have secured a significant collaborative commitment by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to concurrently assess fish populations. That significantly enhances the proposal in the reviewers eyes.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Will assist in prioritizing restoration actions.
Comments
This project is likely to confirm that six small streams have been severely degraded by past land use. Needed actions such as riparian easements or fences, may already be known.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until subbasin planning is completed and the need for this project can be properly assessed. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
183
Comment: