FY 2000 proposal 199607709
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect and Restore the Squaw to Papoose Creeks Watersheds |
| Proposal ID | 199607709 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Emmit E. Taylor Jr. |
| 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 |
Protecting and restoring the Squaw to Papoose Creek Watersheds is the overall goal of this project. We will achieve this working within an overall watershed approach, based on a completed watershed anaylsis. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout, and Westslope Cutthroat Trout |
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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1996 |
Stabilized 3 landslides. |
| 1996 |
Unplugged 5 culverts. |
| 1996 |
Placed large woody debris in-stream. |
| 1996 |
Re-vegetated 1 mile of stream banks. |
| 1997 |
Obliterated 9 miles of system/non-system roads. |
| 1998 |
Obliterated 12 miles of system/non-system roads. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9608600 |
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Focus Watershed Program |
The Focus Program is co-coordinated between the NPT and the State of Idaho. |
| 970600 |
Nez Perce Tribal Focus Watershed Program |
The Focus Program is co-coordinated between the NPT and the State of Idaho. |
| 9809802 |
Salmon Supplementation in Idaho Rivers |
Protect and restore watersheds for anadromous and resident fish habitat. |
| 9607707 |
Focus Watershed Coordinator |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901700 |
Protecting and Restoring Lapwai Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607708 |
Protecting and Restoring Lolo Creek Watershed |
was in umbrella table |
| 9901600 |
Rehabilitation of Big Canyon Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 9607711 |
Restoring McComas Meadows - Meadow Creek |
was in umbrella table |
|
Lostine River Rehabilitation |
was in umbrella table |
| 20087 |
Protection of Mill Creek |
was in umbrella table |
| 20086 |
Rehabilitation of Newsome Creek |
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 |
|
$96,328 |
| Fringe |
|
$14,776 |
| Supplies |
|
$2,860 |
| Travel |
|
$22,380 |
| Indirect |
|
$35,443 |
| Other |
Vehicle Costs |
$18,620 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$163,200 |
| $353,607 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $353,607 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $353,607 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Clearwater National Forest |
Planning, road idenification, technical support, onsite contract administration, obliteration of additional miles of roads, continuation of flood damage restoration. |
$300,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints:
Existing schedules for the 2000 budget year may change due to weather conditions. All on-the-ground projects occur in mountainous areas at elevations up to 5000 feet above sea level, where unpredictable weather patterns may occur.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Delay funding until the monitoring and evaluation plan is described in greater detail and a qualified fluvial geomorphologist is included on the project team. A comprehensive review of all habitat restoration activities in the Clearwater basin is needed.
Comments:
This particular proposal for Squaw and Papoose Creek identifies logging activities, and associated flood damage (largely sedimentation-related) during the late 1995 floods, as the primary habitat problem in the basin, and road obliteration as the relevant response. About 12 miles of road were apparently removed in 1998. Other habitat mitigation measures, such as hillslope stabilization, addition of woody debris to channels, and stream bank revegetation have also been undertaken (although they are not mentioned in the project objectives or methods. This is an expensive project (total cost 2000-2004 over $1.5M), and it is not possible to determine from the proposal how much of the work has already been accomplished. The panel was concerned that despite initiation of the project in 1996, there are apparently no monitoring results.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
M&E coordination will be included when quantitative methods are developed. Public awareness/education done in cooperation with the USFS. The WTWG review comments are policy related, not technical. 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? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This is another example of a BPA-funded watershed program operating on Forest Service land to repair damage resulting from Forest Service land management practices. Since the Forest Service is planning more roads and timber sales, they should pay for restoration.There is no evidence that this project is meeting its biological objectives.
It is unclear how many FTEs are supported. The same personnel have been listed as one full FTE on multiple projects.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
Comment:
Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed the most important ISRP questions and comments adequately. See also programmatic recommendations under project 9706000.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]