FY 2000 proposal 199706000

Additional documents

199706000 Narrative Narrative
199706000 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleClearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - NPT
Proposal ID199706000
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameIra Jones
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437406 / iraj@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionManage and Implement a comprehensive system to coordinate multiple jurisdictions, agencies, and private landowners within the 1855 Nez Perce ceded territory area. These efforts will protect, restore, and enhance anadromous fisheries habitat.
Target speciesSpring Chinook salmon, Fall Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead, Pacific Lamprey, Westslope Cuttroat trout, and Bull trout.
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1996 Coordinate Salmon Corps to remove six miles of barb-wire and rail fence
1996 Coordinate Salmon Corps to stabilize landslide.
1997 Coordinate with Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests to develop Cost-Share Agreements/Memorandum of Understanding
1997 Coordinate with Clearwater National Forest (CNF) to plan/implement road obliteration within the Squaw, Papoose, and Lolo Creek Watersheds.
1997 Coordinate with CNF to design/construct riparian/meadow protection fence.
1997 Coordinate with Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) to design/construct riparian/meadow protection fence.
1998 Coordinate with CNF, Potlatch Corporation, Idaho Dept. of Lands, and private grazing permittees to develop a Challenge Cost Share Agreement.
1998 Coordinate with above stated agencies to design/implement construction of riparian protection fence.
1998 Coordinate with consultant and contractor to install two cattle guards and one off-site watering development for cattle in the uplands
1998 Coordinate with NPNF to install water table wells in McComas Meadows to monitor the groundwater levels associated with meadow/wetland rehabilitation.
1998 Monitoring of fence construction to ensure over-winter survival and human impacts are repaired.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9607701 Meadow Creek Restoration - Idaho Graduate Research Project
9607701 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Supplementation
9607711 Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed
20084 Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds
20085 Analyse and Improve Fish Screens
20086 Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed
20087 Protect Mill Creek Watershed
9901600 Protecting & Restoring Big Canyon Creek Watershed
9901700 Rehabilitate Lapwai Creek
9607708 Protecting & Restoring the Lolo Creek Watershed
9608600 Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Focus Watershed Project
9607709 Protecting & Restoring Squaw & Papoose Creek Watersheds

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $52,000
Fringe 14% $7,280
Supplies Public Meetings, Workshop, Newsletter Publishing, Information,and education $3,500
Capital Grounds maintenance & Building Improvements $5,000
Travel $12,000
Indirect 22.9% $18,957
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$98,737
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$98,737
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: A habitat assessment by coordinating agencies is the framework for long-term work within each subbasin. Proposal develoopment for projects in the near-term will be substantially based on previous planning prioritizaitons.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Delay Funding
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Delay funding until they demonstrate relation to fish and wildlife and include a clear statement of overall objectives of this project, the relationship of project objectives to overall basin restoration objectives, as well as timelines, and a rationale (prioritization via a watershed assessment) indicating why specific elements are being undertaken, and in what order. A comprehensive review, via a visiting committee, of all habitat restoration projects within the Clearwater basin is needed.

Comments: This project is similar to companion Project 9608600, except that the focus is on the eastern portion of the basin. Many of the comments made on 9608600 are relevant to this project as well. Specifically, a) there is a danger of the work becoming fragmented and including activities not directly related to restoration goals, unless leadership is asserted by the coordinating personnel. To that end, an outline of the specific types of actions is required, as written this proposal lacks a convincing argument that anything other than "coordination" will result; b) the project needs a more pronounced focus on increased flows that are closer to natural seasonal hydrographs, and c) the proposal offers only a vague discussion of methods. Unlike proposal 9608600, which at least provided a "toolkit" of possible approaches, no attempt is made to indicate what will be done. A typical example under Section e (project objectives) is the statement (for objective 2) that the product will be "watershed assessments …". Does this mean a report, or are on-the-ground improvements to be made? The panel was particularly concerned about the apparent lack of a fisheries focus. For instance, the proposal states "The critical assumption upon which the program was initiated was the anticipation that all groups, governments, industries, and individuals with resource interests in the Clearwater basin would endorse a watershed level coordinated effort to address fisheries concerns" . Yet there seems to be no fishery biologist involved in the project. It appears that this project may be a physical-social exercise having no direct relation to the fish or in which the genuine fishery aspects will be easily lost sight of. There is no discussion of the biological effectiveness of the project. The effort needs biological oversight and biological auditing. Finally, the proposers appear to have ignored Council's guidance that watershed assessments are to be the basis for restoration efforts, and are to be completed before embarking on specific restoration project elements. No indication is given of how the project relates to a watershed assessment, or if one even exists

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


The Idaho Watershed SRT believes the status in the final version of the WTWG review has incorrectly changed the status of this project from Yes to No.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


Projects 9706000 and 9608600 are redundant.

It is difficult to determine whether the restoration activities are the direct result of the coordination activities.

Coordination proposals should include a clearly developed performance plan (i.e. external and internal review of progress).

Biological objectives and milestones are not clear. Monitoring plan needs more detail.

The proposal is better written this year than last year and provides more justification.

Oct 29, 1999


Fund at base level to maintain operations until province review. The recommendation of the ISRP, in its June 15 FY2000 report, was to delay funding, until what is now being termed a "province review" can be conducted. The panel was not persuaded by the response that this recommendation should be changed to a recommendation for full funding.

This is the companion to project 9608600, and the recommendation is the same. The projects are designed to provide some of the oversight and coordination function to a group of watershed restoration projects. This function is badly needed, but has been weak to date, and both projects are in need of careful review and recommendations of the type that can only be provided by a site review team. Furthermore, by the time of the province review, this project needs to demonstrate that there is a coordinated biological monitoring plan in place. The ISRP recognizes the urgency of the province review, and has recommended that the Clearwater basin be among the first to be scheduled. Note that ISRP is now recommending that the component restoration projects within the Clearwater basin on which work is already underway be funded in the interim (which is a change for most from a "delay funding" recommendation).

Nov 8, 1999


Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$233,076 $140,000 $140,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website