FY 2000 proposal 20086
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 |
|---|---|
| 20086 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20086 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S.F. Clearwater River |
| Proposal ID | 20086 |
| 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 | 2088432253 / felixm@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Protect and enhance Newsome Creek watershed for the benefit of both resident and anadromous fish. This will be accomplished using an overall watershed approach. |
| Target species | Targeted species include A-run steelhead, Spring Chinook, and bull trout. |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Created a sediment trap and revegetated placer mine. |
| 1989 | U.S. Forest Service placed instream structures in Newsome Creek. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9608600 | Clearwater Watershed Coordinator - Idaho Soil and Conservation District | Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin. |
| 8335000 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery | Watershed protection and restoration for anadromous fish. |
| 9600600 | Clearwater Watershed Coordinator - Nez Perce Tribe | Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin. |
| 9901600 | Protect and Restore Big Canyon 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 |
| 9901700 | Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed | was in umbrella table |
| 20087 | Protect & Restore Mill Creek | was in umbrella table |
| 20085 | Analyse & Improve Fish Screen | was in umbrella table |
| Focus Watershed Coordinator | was in umbrella table | |
| 20084 | Protect & Restore the North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds | 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 | $45,000 | |
| Fringe | $9,200 | |
| Supplies | $4,700 | |
| Travel | $11,000 | |
| Indirect | $19,825 | |
| Other | vehicle costs | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | $255,000 | |
| $364,725 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $364,725 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $364,725 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nez Perce National Forest | Technical expertise, watershed assessment. | $80,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Existing schedules for the FY2000 budget may change due to weather conditions. All on the ground projects occur in mountainous areas at elevation up to 5500 feet above sea level, where upredictable weather patterns may occur.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until priority of activities is justified and a 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 20086, one curious aspect is that mining activities are identified at the beginning of the project description as a key source of habitat degradation. Yet, it is not clear that the project will really address those problems. Objective 3, "Design channel rehabilitation …" would appear to be relevant, but there is no mention in the methods section that anything specific would be done – the focus seems to be primarily on the road issue. Insufficient information has been provided to show that retiring the roads specified will result in significant sediment load reduction. Why the particular road segments? Other issues raised in the Proposal 20084 panel summary pertain here as well. Specifically, there is a real possibility that the road work could make the problem worse rather than better, and it does not appear that the project team has the proper qualifications to undertake this work. The problem may well be an important one, and perhaps the proposers are even on the right track, but the proposal(s) simply don't provide any confidence that the projects are well conceived. The panel was also concerned about the lack of a watershed restoration plan or plans that could provide overall context for the project(s).
Some additional panel comments on Proposal 20086 include:
1) There seems to be over-reliance on the Rosgen method. Project personnel should get second-opinions on their hydrologic/geomorphic approach from qualified fluvial (and watershed) geomorphologists of the non-Rosgen school.
2) On p. 13—"health of the stream" cannot be measured by the proposed method. The proposers should better define what they are driving at and include biological factors.
3) The abstract mentions certain biological monitoring ("snorkel counts to document juvenile survival, and redd counts to document adult spawning success"), but such are not covered in the methods section—and the way they are expressed in the abstract leads one to believe the proposers probably don't know what they are talking about. The monitoring and evaluation plans are inadequate.
4) P. 14, end of first paragraph—"The hydrological data [from the 'Rosgen method'] will be used to create a good picture of what is happening within the watershed and help identify limiting factors within the watershed" (italics added). Limiting of what?
Comment:
Comment:
The WTWG comments are based on policy, not technical review. Costshare and mitigation practices are spelled out in proposal, but ignored by WTWG. The 1855 treaty gives the Nez Perce regulatory authority to protect, restore, and enhance all resources. The Idaho watershed SRT believes the WTWG should change the status of this project to Yes.Technically Sound? No
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. This watershed is low relief with many easily accessible stream-side roads. Only 10 miles of road will be obliterated for high cost.Road obliteration is the Forest Service's responsibility.
Comment:
Fund. This is a companion to project 20084 and 20087; many of the original proposal deficiencies were similar, as is the response. The major deficiencies are addressed in the proposers' response, and ISRP now recommends funding. See also programmatic recommendation under projects 9706000 and 9608600.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]