FY 2000 proposal 20085
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Analyze and Improve Fish Screens |
| Proposal ID | 20085 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Elmer Crowe |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088432253 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Analyze and Improve Fish Screens on pump and water diversion in cooperation with the Idaho Fish and Game. |
| Target species | Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Steelhead trout, Pacific Lamprey, and resident fish |
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 |
|---|
| 8335000 |
Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery |
Supplementation |
| 9608600 |
Clearwater Focus Coordinator
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission |
Co-coordinator for Clearwater River Subbasin |
| 9401500 |
Idaho Fish Screening |
Fish Screens |
| 9600600 |
Clearwater Focus Watershed/Co-coordinators |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607709 |
Protect and Restore Squaw and Papoose Watersheds |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607711 |
Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607708 |
Protect and Restore the Lolo Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901700 |
Rehabilitate Lapwai Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901600 |
Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20087 |
Protect and Restore Mill Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20086 |
Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 20084 |
Protect and Restore North Lochsa Face Watershed Analysis Area |
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 |
|
$65,405 |
| Fringe |
24% Non-Tax-Exempt, Perm Staff
14% Tax-Exempt, Perm Staff |
$11,660 |
| Supplies |
Monitoring equipment |
$5,000 |
| Travel |
|
$6,740 |
| Indirect |
22.9% |
$20,336 |
| Subcontractor |
Idaho Dept of Fish and Game |
$20,000 |
| $129,141 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $129,141 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $129,141 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Idaho Dept of Fish and Game |
Fish Screen Implementation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Support and Training |
$20,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Unwilling landowner participation
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. Inadequate scientific justification is provided.
Comments:
This is a proposal for a new project to evaluate opportunities to improve screening of irrigation pumps and diversions in the Lower Snake River. It would consist of an inventory of unscreened pumps and diversions, and installation of screens was needed. The project would be carried out in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. A critical deficiency of the proposal is its failure to describe adequately the problem and its magnitude. Why should this be a priority effort, in comparison with other habitat activities? Is there justification for this effort in a watershed restoration plan? This project seems to be directed at installation of screens on specific irrigation works owned by others, and the panel wondered how effective that approach will be in the long run. Another panel concern was that absence of any information in the proposal indicating how many screens would be installed, and the unit cost. The budget seems to be almost entirely for personnel. How will objective 2 ("Install needed screens identified by the inventory") be met, in the absence of supplies? Perhaps that is a contribution of ID F&G, but this needs to be spelled out. In its current form, funding is not merited. If the proposal is resubmitted, it needs to be much more specific in terms of what will be done, and what impact it could make on the overall problem associated with irrigation diversions in the Lower Snake system.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
There are very few or no irrigation withdrawals in the Clearwater. Proposal appears to fund staff, with little purpose. Proposal is vague and incomplete. No coordination. 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.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Inadequate fish screens have high mortality rates.Cooperative project with IDFG.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];