Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore West Fork Little Bear Creek For Steelhead |
| Proposal ID | 9118 |
| Organization | Palouse-Clearwater Environmental Institute (PCEI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Thomas C. Lamar |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 8596 Moscow, ID 83843 |
| Phone / email | 2088821444 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Restoring natural/wild steelhead/rainbow trout to the upper reaches of the West Fork of Little Bear Creek will be accomplished through the biophysical restoration of those reaches of the West Fork of Little Bear Creek that have been urbanized. |
| Target species | |
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 |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Coordination staff |
$40,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$8,000 |
| Supplies |
Geotextiles, Plants, Revetments |
$100,000 |
| Travel |
Local Travel |
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
%10 |
$47,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Terragraphics Environmental Engineering; City of Troy |
$20,000 |
| Other |
|
$300,000 |
| Other |
|
$300,000 |
| $817,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $817,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $817,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Permitting
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision*
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Objective 4 is troubling because it appears that the proposed action should first be to construct the "functional floodplain." Explain how "re-constructing" a floodplain does not adversely affect fish and wildlife.Technical Issue: Need to more clearly describe specifically what work will be performed and why.
Technical Issue: Explain how the budget is necessary for fixing the problem.
Technical Issue: Need to clearly explain what the critical limiting factors in the watershed are.
Technical Issue: Explain if the proposed action is an interim measure (Band-Aid approach), and if so, how this action is not contradictory to other present or future actions. Explain how the other factors in the watershed - specifically, those in the headwaters – contribute to causing the problem – and are being addressed in this proposal so that this action is presented in a watershed context.
Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is poorly written and does not describe how it fits into salmonid recovery in the Columbia River Basin. The problem is not well described nor is the number of miles of stream that are to be treated. As proposed, this project could result in a cycle of construct-flood-construct. The causes of the destruction should be addressed.