FY07-09 proposal 199608600
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Clearwater Focus Program, Idaho SCC |
| Proposal ID | 199608600 |
| Organization | Idaho Soil Conservation Commission |
| Short description | Idaho State co-coordinator of the Clearwater Focus Program to provide technical and management assistance to habitat restoration groups, performs staff functions for Clearwater PAC, and interagency liaison for program development. |
| Information transfer | Information on program status is reported quarterly to the Bonneville Power Administration, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Idaho Office of Species Conservation, bi-monthly to the Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, and montly to the ISCC administrator. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Janet Hohle | Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Linda Georgiev | Idaho Department of Agriculture | [email protected] |
| Janet Hohle | Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | [email protected] |
| Jerry Nicolescu | Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project area includes the entire Clearwater River subbasin |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Fishsecondary: All Wildlife
Additional: All focal terrestrial species, Clearwater Subbasin Assessment 2003, Sections 5 & 6
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | SWCD management planning, designed protocol & participated in SWCD program review; prepared MOU for SCC and Idaho OSC; project implementation support role; 4 of 5 PCSRF proposals funded (SWCD, city, county) coordinated legal contract development |
| 2004 | Prepared subbasin plan adoption supplement; resubmitted plan; presented workshops on plan documents; continued project implementaiton support role; prepared 4 PCSRF proposals- 2 funded. |
| 2003 | Coordinated subbasin plan review and response to ISRP comments; contributing author; resubmitted subbasin plan; continued project implementation support role. |
| 2002 | Completed subbasin assessment; inititated subbasin planning implemented public process, contributing author to plan documents; submitted draft subbasin plan to council; continued project implementation support role. |
| 2001 | Coordinated subbasin summary review, coordinated provincial review in Clearwater; developed new project proposals for Potlatch River |
| 2000 | convened PAC terrestrial and aquatic subcommittees for subbasin assessment, continued project support role; began monitoring in Potlatch; facilitated subbasin summary process |
| 1999 | Continued implementation assistance; convened Clearwater Policy Advisory Committee; began subbasin assessment process; prepared SOWs for SWCD projects. |
| 1998 | Coordinated subbasin review; compiled information on the Potlatch River, Big Canyon Creek, and Little Canyon Creek for project design; prepared proposals and secured funding for Big Canyon and Little Canyon creeks, assisted SWCDs with implementation. |
| 1997 | Compiled existing plans, program, policies, laws; developed resource bibliography of projects and databases; compiled list of funding sources; |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199706000 | Clearwater Focus Watershed Np | Clearwater Focus Program co-coordiantion w/ Idaho SCC |
| BPA | 199901400 | Little Canyon Creek Habitat | SWCD Focus project |
| BPA | 199901500 | Big Canyon Fish Habitat | SWCD Focus project |
| BPA | 199901600 | Protect/Restore Big Canyon Cr. | NPT Focus project |
| BPA | 199901700 | Rehabilitate Lapwai Creek | NPT Focus project |
| BPA | 200206100 | Restore Potlatch R Watershed | SWCD Focus project |
| BPA | 200207000 | Lapwai Cr Anadromous Habitat | SWCD Focus project |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enhance Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities | Coordinate and integrate regional expertise and funding for implementation opportunities to maximize ecosystem benefits | Clearwater | LL1: Integrate local community needs and resources in program development and implementation. LL2: Coordinate agency implementation goals and efforts to aviod duplication. |
| Protect Functioning Wetlands | Complete wetland delineations on private lands in lower Clearwater watersheds by finalizing portions of the National Wetlands Inventory maps. Investigate opportunities for conservation easements, land acquisitions, land exchanges, etc. | Clearwater | Z1: finalize national wetlands inventory map; Z2: protect wetlandhabitats through land acquistion, conservation easements, land exchanges |
| Protect, Enhance, and Restore Ecological Diversity | Implement the categorical priorities - protect, enhance, and restore, by facilitating organized watershed based implementation. | Clearwater | Clearwater Subbasin Adoption Supplement, Section J. General Summary of Management Approach-Protection/Restoration |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | Support SWCDs, county commissions, watershed groups | Provide assistance and consultation with project development, management, implementation, and contracting; includes grant writing and proposal development. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $74,760 |
|
Biological objectives Enhance Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Coordinate and administer Clearwater PAC and other subbasin agency partners | Interagency coordination in subbasin; PAC convenes quarterly unless special project circumstances arise which may include implementation of the Snake River Basin Adjudication restoration work. May include components of WE #114-project identificaiton & selection | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $59,964 |
|
Biological objectives Enhance Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Assist SWCDs and other groups with technical review of plans, designs, reports. | Participate on technical advisory teams; | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $14,796 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, Enhance, and Restore Ecological Diversity |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Assist Bonneville project sponsors with environmental compliance | Assist Bonneville project sponsors to develop biological assessemnts, NEPA checklists, supplemental anaysis, cultural resource reviews, and permit applications. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $29,592 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, Enhance, and Restore Ecological Diversity |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Wetland Delineation | Retain specialists to complete delineations for wetlands in critical areas: field verify for final determination wetlands preliminarily identified on the National Wetlands Inventory. Select areas to enhance implemetation projects. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives Protect Functioning Wetlands |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Contract services for engineering or legal consultation | Provide service to SWCDs for legal review in the development of construction contracts and other legal agreements. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $10,500 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, Enhance, and Restore Ecological Diversity |
Metrics |
||||
| Other | Assist subbasin restoration partners with funding proposal development | Prepare proposal documents for funding from other organizations: Idaho Soil Conservation Commisison, Idaho PCSRF; NOAA Fisheries; Idaho Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Bonneville funding can be used for cost share required by Idaho PCSRF program and all state programs. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $59,964 |
|
Biological objectives Protect, Enhance, and Restore Ecological Diversity |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Restoration project and monitoring inventory | Maintain subbasin project inventory database. Investigate alternative methods for compiling and organizing database. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $45,169 |
|
Biological objectives Enhance Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | General administration of project | Draft SOW, budgets, property inventory, management assistance to other Bonneville project sponsors as requested. | 7/1/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $9,663 |
|
Biological objectives Enhance Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Pisces Quarterly Status Report | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 9/30/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $1,000 |
|
Biological objectives Enhance Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Annual Report | Produce annual summary report on contract year activities, accomplishments, and issues encountered. | 6/30/2007 | 6/30/2009 | $1,000 |
|
Biological objectives Enhance Enhancement and Restoration Opportunities |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 26.50*2080 hrs | $55,120 | $55,120 | $55,120 |
| Fringe Benefits | @33% | $18,300 | $18,300 | $18,300 |
| Supplies | printing, publishing, office space, mtgs, misc. office & computer supplies, mileage or car rental | $11,425 | $11,425 | $11,425 |
| Travel | BOI, GEG, PDX | $3,880 | $3,880 | $3,880 |
| Overhead | @11.17% | $9,911 | $9,911 | $9,911 |
| Other | Subcontracts: legal, engineering, wetlands | $8,500 | $8,500 | $8,500 |
| Totals | $107,136 | $107,136 | $107,136 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $321,408 |
| Total work element budget: | $321,408 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISCC | GIS support | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Totals | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $107,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $107,000 |
Comments: This project has very stable funding projections that vary little. |
Future O&M costs: n/a
Termination date:
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $98,000 | $98,000 | $98,000 | $294,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $98,000 | $98,000 | $98,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Admin (see comments)
NPCC comments: This proposal is to provide a coordinator to integrate activities by Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Nez Perce Tribe, and others with the priorities in the Clearwater subbasin plan. The funding request is for a single FTE. Although the ISRP placed this proposal in the administrative category, the proposal is not justified as presented. This position may be an essential element of stewardship for the subbasin. But based on the proposal, it is not clear that this project is showing results in the basin for restoration and evaluation. This project is supposed to provide vital services, but it is not clear what essential functions this individual provides, and what would happen regarding subbasin integration and facilitation of other Council Fish and Wildlife Program proposals if this coordinator was not available. The list of tasks for the Focus Coordinator are extensive, leading reviewers to be skeptical of whether this position covers these tasks, for example, "Maintain subbasin inventory database and maps" (page 10 #3) and "Provide contract engineering or legal assistance to Bonneville project sponsors" (page 11 #3). These are disparate tasks for a single person, thus it is not clear what the coordinator actually does. The focus of this proposal seems to be facilitating meetings. The ISRP’s province review recommendation included the statement: “This project should demonstrate performance by the next review cycle otherwise it should be terminated.” The coordinator clearly played a role in completion of the subbasin plan, but the continued value of the coordination is not persuasively presented. Past ISRP reviews indicated a need to increase activity in coordinating M&E in the subbasin. From this proposal it is clear that there is no intent to do that. The project began in 1996, but there is an inadequate summary of the assignments actually performed by the Focus Coordinator. There is a list of the meetings that the coordinator facilitated, but it is not clear that this facilitation improved the coordination of activities in the subbasin. Four projects are identified as Clearwater focus projects, and there is connection to two other through the NPT Focus coordinator. This seems to be minimal rationale to justify a coordinator to link these projects. Moreover, the proposals from the focus projects need significant improvement, so there is no evidence that this position is critical to the SWCDs being able to connect with each other, BPA, and Idaho PCSRF. In other words, the results of the ongoing efforts and how this project improved those efforts through coordination and support are not evident, and based on the other proposals submitted are not promising. In sum, there is not a clear demonstration that this coordinator is essential to execute proposals to BPA and PCSRF. As with other watershed coordinator proposals, the proposed effort would be better integrated into a proposal that is directed toward management based on science including on-the-ground work and monitoring.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Admin (see comments)
NPCC comments: This proposal is to provide a coordinator to integrate activities by Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Nez Perce Tribe, and others with the priorities in the Clearwater subbasin plan. The funding request is for a single FTE. Although the ISRP placed this proposal in the administrative category, the proposal is not justified as presented. This position may be an essential element of stewardship for the subbasin. But based on the proposal, it is not clear that this project is showing results in the basin for restoration and evaluation. This project is supposed to provide vital services, but it is not clear what essential functions this individual provides, and what would happen regarding subbasin integration and facilitation of other Council Fish and Wildlife Program proposals if this coordinator was not available. The list of tasks for the Focus Coordinator are extensive, leading reviewers to be skeptical of whether this position covers these tasks, for example, "Maintain subbasin inventory database and maps" (page 10 #3) and "Provide contract engineering or legal assistance to Bonneville project sponsors" (page 11 #3). These are disparate tasks for a single person, thus it is not clear what the coordinator actually does. The focus of this proposal seems to be facilitating meetings. The ISRP’s province review recommendation included the statement: “This project should demonstrate performance by the next review cycle otherwise it should be terminated.” The coordinator clearly played a role in completion of the subbasin plan, but the continued value of the coordination is not persuasively presented. Past ISRP reviews indicated a need to increase activity in coordinating M&E in the subbasin. From this proposal it is clear that there is no intent to do that. The project began in 1996, but there is an inadequate summary of the assignments actually performed by the Focus Coordinator. There is a list of the meetings that the coordinator facilitated, but it is not clear that this facilitation improved the coordination of activities in the subbasin. Four projects are identified as Clearwater focus projects, and there is connection to two other through the NPT Focus coordinator. This seems to be minimal rationale to justify a coordinator to link these projects. Moreover, the proposals from the focus projects need significant improvement, so there is no evidence that this position is critical to the SWCDs being able to connect with each other, BPA, and Idaho PCSRF. In other words, the results of the ongoing efforts and how this project improved those efforts through coordination and support are not evident, and based on the other proposals submitted are not promising. In sum, there is not a clear demonstration that this coordinator is essential to execute proposals to BPA and PCSRF. As with other watershed coordinator proposals, the proposed effort would be better integrated into a proposal that is directed toward management based on science including on-the-ground work and monitoring.