FY 2000 proposal 20084
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds |
| Proposal ID | 20084 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Emmit E. Taylor Jr. |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088432253 / emmitt@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description |
Protecting and restoring the North Lochsa Face Watershed to increase anadromous fish populations is the overall goal of this project. We will achieve this working within an overall watershed approach, based on comprehensive studies of the analysis area. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout, and Westslope Cutthroat Trout |
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
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 968600 |
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Focus Watershed Progam |
The Focus Progam is co-coordinated between the NPT and the State of Idaho. |
| 9706000 |
Nez Perce Tribal Focus Watershed Program |
The Focus Progam is co-coordinated between the NPT and the State of Idaho. |
| 8335000 |
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery |
Watershed Protection and Restoration for Anadromous and Resident Fish. |
| 9809802 |
Salmon Supplementation in Idaho Rivers |
Protect and restore watersheds for anadromous and resident fish habitat. |
| 9607707 |
Focus Watershed Coordinator |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607709 |
Protect and Restore the Squaw to Papoose Creek Watersheds |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901700 |
Protecting and Restoring Lapwai Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607708 |
Protecting and Restoring Lolo Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901700 |
Protecting and Restoring Lolo Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901600 |
Rehabilitation of Big Canyon Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607711 |
Restoring McComas Meadows - Meadow Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 20085 |
Analyse and Improve Fish Screens |
was in umbrella table |
| 20087 |
Protection of Mill Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 20086 |
Rehabilitation of Newsome 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 |
|
$50,370 |
| Fringe |
|
$7,948 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,520 |
| Travel |
|
$13,896 |
| Indirect |
|
$20,828 |
| Other |
Vehicle Costs |
$17,220 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$93,000 |
| $204,782 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $204,782 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $204,782 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Clearwater National Forest |
Planning, road idenification, technical support, onsite contract administration, obliteration of additional miles of roads, continuation of flood damage restoration. |
$200,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Existing schedules for the 2000 budget year may change due to weather conditions. All on-the-ground projects occur in mountainous areas at elevations up to 5000 feet above sea level, where unpredictable weather patterns may occur.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Delay funding until the monitoring and evaluation plan is better described and a qualified fluvial geomorphologist is included on the project team. A comprehensive review of all habitat restoration activities in the Clearwater basin is needed.
Comments:
With respect to Proposal 20084, the proposers identify sediment as "a limiting factor for increasing anadromous fish populations" in the area. The proposers should have provided a reference, and some hard numbers showing sediment yield for the basin as compared with other comparable basins that have not been subjected to the same land use history. The proposed project would retire ten miles of roads within the area. Although the case has been made elsewhere that debris flows initiated by cut slope failures can be a major sediment source in logged watersheds, there are several aspects of this project that are of concern. First, insufficient information has been provided to show that retiring ten miles of roads will result in significant sediment load reduction. Why the ten miles specifically picked? Second, it appears that some of the methods proposed (i.e., removing culverts, regrading steep slopes) could well make the problem worse rather than better. Is there sufficient expertise on the project team to assure that the medicine won't be worse than the disease? As a minimum, the project needs to include a well-qualified fluvial geomorphologist. Supervision by an Engineer-in-Training is not sufficient. The methods to be used for M&E (Objective 2) are not explained in nearly enough detail. Pre-and post-monitoring must include measurement of sediment loads, but sediment loads tend to be disproportionately affected by a few small intense storms. How will the ensuing problems of statistical significance be resolved? Another concern is why this project should not be paid for by USFS, which apparently built the roads in question. If those roads are the source of the problem, certainly they must have a financial liability. Finally, while it appears that the project will wind down by the end of five years, the reviewers could not find a definitive statement of project duration.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This would be in addition to USFS work correcting problems. Public awareness done cooperatively with the USFS.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Considerable concern about the cost-effectiveness and long-term biological benefit of this project. The Forest Service is not staying out of abused watersheds to allow recovery and is planning timber sales in this particular area.Road obliteration is the Forest Service's responsibility.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
Comment:
Fund. The proposers have provided most of the information that was missing in the original proposal, especially prioritization and scheduling of project activities, and qualifications of personnel. ISRP therefore now recommends that this project, and companion projects within the Clearwater basin, be funded. See also programmatic recommendations under projects 9706000 and 9608600.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]