View Project
View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Please correct the errors noted below.
| Number: |
1999-015-00 |
| Title: |
Big Canyon Fish Habitat |
Summary:
(from Pisces) |
Big Canyon Creek historically provided quality spawning and rearing habitat for A-run wild summer steelhead in the Clearwater River subbasin. However, high stream temperatures, excessive sediment and nutrient loads, low summer stream flows, and little instream cover have created anadromous fish habitat constraints for the stream. The primary nonpoint source pollutants and habitat degradation are attributed to agricultural, livestock, and forestry practices. The Clearwater Subbasin Summary states that a primary limiting factor for resident salmonid populations is the impact of land management activities on hydrology, sedimentation, habitat distribution and complexity, and water quality. In the Big Canyon Creek watershed, low stream flows and a lack of adequate multi-layered riparian vegetation have reduced the suitability of the stream and its tributaries as spawning and rearing habitat. The project actions focus primarily on agricultural lands and the improvement of the limiting factors within these lands. |
| Proposer: |
<none> |
| Proponent Orgs: |
Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) (SWCD)
|
| Starting FY: |
1999 |
| Ending FY: |
2011 |
| BPA PM: |
David Byrnes |
| Stage: |
Implementation |
| Area: |
Provincial - Mountain Snake/Clearwater: 100.0%
|
| Purpose: |
Habitat |
| Emphasis: |
Restoration/Protection |
| Focal Species: |
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow |
| Species Benefit: |
Anadromous: 100.0%
Resident: 0.0%
Wildlife: 0.0%
|
| Tags: |
<none>
|
| Special: |
<none>
|
| BiOp Association: |
<none> |
| Expense |
SOY |
Working Budget |
Contracted Amount |
Expenditures |
| FY2009 (Previous) |
$65,000 |
$65,000 |
$65,000 |
$89,106 |
|
| General |
$65,000 |
$65,000 |
$65,000 |
$89,106 |
|
| FY2010 (Current) |
$0 |
$0 |
|
$80,416 |
|
| General |
$0 |
$0 |
|
$0 |
| General - Within Year |
$0 |
$0 |
|
$0 |
|
| FY2011 (Next) |
$0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Expense Budget (FY2004-FY2009): $889,211; Total Expense Expenditures (FY2004-FY2009): $867,664 |
|
| No Capital budgets |
|
| Acct FY |
Acct Type |
Amount |
Fund |
Review |
Decision |
| FY2009 |
Expense |
$0 |
FROM: General |
FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
4/26/2007 |
| FY2009 |
Expense |
$161,131 |
FROM: General |
FY07-09 Implementation Review |
7/2/2007 |
| FY2009 |
Expense |
($96,131) |
TO: General |
FY08-09 Implementation Review |
7/3/2008 |
| FY2010 |
Expense |
$0 |
FROM: General |
FY10 Project Budgets |
8/20/2009 |
| FY2010 |
Expense |
$0 |
FROM: General - Within Year |
BOG FY10-Q1 (Within-year requests) |
3/29/2010 |
Project Cost Share:
FY2009 70 %
FY2008 48 %
FY2007 45 %
| Fiscal Year |
Cost Share Partner |
Total Proposed
Contribution |
Total Confirmed
Contribution |
| FY2008 |
Nez Perce Tribe |
$12,000 |
$7,800 |
| FY2008 |
Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
|
$25,860 |
| FY2008 |
Nez Perce County |
|
$17,700 |
| FY2008 |
University of Idaho |
|
$600 |
| FY2008 |
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) |
|
$12,030 |
| FY2008 |
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) |
$34,000 |
$18,627 |
| FY2008 |
US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) |
|
$2,583 |
| FY2008 |
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission |
|
$2,400 |
| FY2008 |
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
|
$1,760 |
| FY2008 |
(Unspecified Org) |
$8,000 |
$26,520 |
| FY2008 |
Idaho State Department of Agriculture |
$5,000 |
$2,250 |
| FY2008 |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) |
|
$1,200 |
| FY2008 |
Lewis County Conservation District (SWCD) |
|
$400 |
| FY2008 |
Latah Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
|
$700 |
| FY2009 |
Nez Perce Tribe |
$12,000 |
$3,600 |
| FY2009 |
Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
|
$31,987 |
| FY2009 |
Nez Perce County |
|
$16,200 |
| FY2009 |
University of Idaho |
|
$600 |
| FY2009 |
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) |
|
$7,040 |
| FY2009 |
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) |
$34,000 |
$16,627 |
| FY2009 |
US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) |
|
$2,400 |
| FY2009 |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) |
|
$1,200 |
| FY2009 |
Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) |
|
$600 |
| FY2009 |
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
|
$2,400 |
| FY2009 |
(Unspecified Org) |
$8,000 |
$66,555 |
| FY2009 |
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission |
|
$2,050 |
| FY2009 |
Lewis County Conservation District (SWCD) |
|
$600 |
| FY2009 |
Latah Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
|
$600 |
| FY2009 |
Idaho State Department of Agriculture |
$5,000 |
$600 |
The table below contains contracts with either Pending or Issued status.
| Number |
Contractor Name |
Title |
Status |
Commitment |
Dates |
| 38501 |
Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
1999-015-00 EXP NPSWCD BIG CANYON CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION |
Issued |
$130,000 |
5/1/2008 - 10/31/2009 |
| BPA-4352 |
Bonneville Power Administration |
PITs |
Active |
$0 |
10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009 |
| 42242 |
Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
199901500 EXP NPSWCD BIG CANYON CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION |
Issued |
$65,000 |
5/1/2009 - 4/30/2010 |
Legal Assessment (In-Lieu):
Capital Assessment:
| Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
|---|
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
|---|
| Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
|---|
| Capital Asset Category: | <none> |
|---|
Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment:
| Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
|---|
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
|---|
| Final ISRP Rating: | Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria |
|---|
Council Recommendation:
| Completed Date: | 10/23/2006 |
|---|
| Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
|---|
| Recommendation: | Do Not Fund |
|---|
- 1 - No Problems Exist
- No in lieu concerns identified.
- 2 - Problems May Exist
- Potential in lieu funding issues: another entity is authorized or required to undertake the activity proposed for BPA funding, but BPA funding appears to be in addition to, not in lieu of the other entity's funding, typically due to cost-sharing. Projects receiving a "Problems May Exist" rating also have a Cost Share Reasonableness rating.
- 3 - Problems Exist
- In lieu funding problems: another entity is authorized or required to undertake the activity, and BPA's funding is in lieu of that entity's funding, e.g., the other entity is authorized or required to undertake the activity and there is no cost-share offset.
- 1 - Appears reasonable
- From the BPA perspective, taking into account the relative proportion of cost-sharing, the nature and extent of the other entities responsibility, and other factors described in the rating comments, this project appears to have reasonable cost share.
- 2 - May be reasonable
- From the BPA perspective, taking into account the relative proportion of cost-sharing, the nature and extent of the other entities responsibility, and other factors described in the rating comments, this project may have reasonable cost share.
- 3 - Does not appear reasonable
- From the BPA perspective, taking into account the relative proportion of cost-sharing, the nature and extent of the other entities responsibility, and other factors described in the rating comments, this project does NOT appear to have reasonable cost share.
- 1 - Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
- Most projects do not qualify for capital funding due to NOT meeting one or more of the capital funding criteria outlined in BPA's Capitalization Policy:
http://www.efw.bpa.gov/IntegratedFWP/FW%20Capitalization%20Policy%2011-4-04.pdf
- 2 - Qualifies for Capital Funding
- BPA capitalizes investments in facilities for fish and wildlife (e.g. hatchery or passage improvements) and land acquisitions (i.e., securing a real property interest for the primary benefit of fish and/or wildlife) that are made to fulfill its obligations under the Northwest Power Act or other authorities, consistent with the Northwest Power Act. In order to be capitalized these investments must meet the following criteria:
1. Power rates have been set and provide for recovery of costs over time.
2. The facility (hatchery or passage improvement) or land provides a measurable future benefit in that it does not fulfull a legal obligation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). For land acquisitions, the receipt of Habitat Units accomplishes this requirement.
3. The facility has a 15-year or greater life; or the land acquisition's Habitat Units or other units of credit are protected for 15 or more years.
4. The facility (or combined interdependent facilities) or land costs more than $1 million.
5. If the land acquisition involves multiple parcels and in total they:
- cost at least $1 million, and
- mitigate for a single FCRPS hydroelectric dam, and
- are purchased within a single fiscal year, and
- are in an area identified by a protection, mitigation, and enhancement plan created prior to 12/31/2000, and
- are shown to be functionally interdependent.
For more details on BPA's Capitalization Policy, please see:
http://www.efw.bpa.gov/IntegratedFWP/FW%20Capitalization%20Policy%2011-4-04.pdf
- 1 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria
- Assigned to a proposal that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria. Each proposal does not have to contain tasks that independently meet each of the criteria but can be an integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For example, a habitat restoration project may use data from a separate monitoring and evaluation project to measure results as long as such proposals clearly demonstrate this integration. Unless otherwise indicated, a "Meets Scientific Criteria" recommendation is not an indication of the ISRP's view on the priority of the proposal, nor an endorsement to fund the proposal, but rather reflects its scientific merit and compatibility with Program goals.
- 2 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
- Assigned to a proposal that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria. Each proposal does not have to contain tasks that independently meet each of the criteria but can be an integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For example, a habitat restoration project may use data from a separate monitoring and evaluation project to measure results as long as such proposals clearly demonstrate this integration. Unless otherwise indicated, a "Meets Scientific Criteria" recommendation is not an indication of the ISRP's view on the priority of the proposal, nor an endorsement to fund the proposal, but rather reflects its scientific merit and compatibility with Program goals.
(Qualified) is assigned to recommendations in the two categories above for which additional clarifications and adjustments to methods and objectives by the sponsor are needed to fully justify the entire proposal. The ISRP expects that needed changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsor in the final project selection process. The ISRP also uses "Qualified" for (1) proposals that are technically sound but appear to offer marginal or very uncertain benefits to fish and wildlife, and when (2) further ISRP review of a project's final implementation plan or analysis of results will be needed before the project moves to full implementation. Regardless of the Council's or Bonneville's recommendations, the ISRP expects that, if a proposal is funded, subsequent proposals for continued funding will address the ISRP's comments.
- 3 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
- Assigned to a proposal that includes some work that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria and some work that does not. The ISRP specifies which elements do not meet the review criteria and recommends that initiating work be delayed until certain technical issues are properly addressed. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance, a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent on-the-ground implementation that cannot be justified before results of the assessment are known, or proposals that include use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective. "In Part" is also used for proposals that are justified for a portion of the years proposed for funding, but would benefit from an interim review within those years - for example, a proof of concept research project for which methods need to be tested at a pilot scale before full implementation. Required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsors in the final project selection process.
- 4 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
- Assigned to a proposal that includes some work that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria and some work that does not. The ISRP specifies which elements do not meet the review criteria and recommends that initiating work be delayed until certain technical issues are properly addressed. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance, a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent on-the-ground implementation that cannot be justified before results of the assessment are known, or proposals that include use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective. "In Part" is also used for proposals that are justified for a portion of the years proposed for funding, but would benefit from an interim review within those years - for example, a proof of concept research project for which methods need to be tested at a pilot scale before full implementation. Required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsors in the final project selection process.
(Qualified) is assigned to recommendations in the two categories above for which additional clarifications and adjustments to methods and objectives by the sponsor are needed to fully justify the entire proposal. The ISRP expects that needed changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsor in the final project selection process. The ISRP also uses "Qualified" for (1) proposals that are technically sound but appear to offer marginal or very uncertain benefits to fish and wildlife, and when (2) further ISRP review of a project's final implementation plan or analysis of results will be needed before the project moves to full implementation. Regardless of the Council's or Bonneville's recommendations, the ISRP expects that, if a proposal is funded, subsequent proposals for continued funding will address the ISRP's comments.
- 5 - Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
- Assigned to a proposal that is significantly deficient in one or more of the ISRP review criteria. One example is a proposal for an ongoing project that might offer benefits to fish and wildlife, but does not include provisions for monitoring and evaluation or reporting of past results. Another example is a research proposal that is technically sound but does not offer benefits to fish and wildlife because it substantially duplicates past efforts or is not sufficiently linked to management actions. In most cases, proposals that receive this recommendation lack detailed methods or adequate provisions for monitoring and evaluation. Some propose actions that have the potential for significant deleterious effects to non-target fish or wildlife. The ISRP notes that proposals in this category may address needed actions or are an integral part of a planned watershed effort, but the proposed means or approaches are not scientifically sound. In some cases, a targeted solicitation may be warranted to address the needed action.
- 6 - Not Applicable
- Assigned to proposals that are not amenable to scientific review, such as coordination or administrative proposals that need to be grouped with other projects that are amenable to scientific review.
- 7 - Response Requested
- Assigned to a proposal in a preliminary review that requires a response on specific issues before the ISRP can make its final recommendation. This does not mean that the proposal has failed the review. The ISRP requests responses from a majority of proposals, and a majority of proposals provide sufficient information in the response loop to meet the ISRP's scientific review criteria.
- 8 - Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part, Response Requested
- Assigned to a proposal in a preliminary review that includes some work that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria and some work that does not. The ISRP specifies which elements do not meet the review criteria and recommends that initiating work be delayed until certain technical issues are properly addressed. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance, a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent on-the-ground implementation that cannot be justified before results of the assessment are known, or proposals that include use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective. "In Part" is also used for proposals that are justified for a portion of the years proposed for funding, but would benefit from an interim review within those years - for example, a proof of concept research project for which methods need to be tested at a pilot scale before full implementation. Required changes to a proposal will be determined by the Council and Bonneville in consultation with the project sponsors in the final project selection process.
Requires a response on specific issues before the ISRP can make its final recommendation. This does not mean that the proposal has failed the review. The ISRP requests responses from a majority of proposals, and a majority of proposals provide sufficient information in the response loop to meet the ISRP's scientific review criteria.
| Project Relationships: |
<none> |
| Name |
Role |
Organization |
Email |
Phone |
| Lynn Rasmussen | Project Lead | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) | lynnrasmussen@co.nezperce.id.us | (208) 843-2931 |
| Mark Fritsch | Interested Party | Northwest Power and Conservation Council | mfritsch@nwcouncil.org | (503) 222-5161 |
| Lisa Marko MacLellan (Inactive) | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration | lmmarko@bpa.gov | (503) 230-4047 |
| Steve Becker | | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) | npswcd@co.nezperce.id.us | (208) 843-2931 |
| David Byrnes | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration | dmbyrnes@bpa.gov | (503) 230-3171 |
| Paul Krueger | Supervisor | Bonneville Power Administration | pqkrueger@bpa.gov | (503) 230-5723 |
Follow this via RSS feed. Need help setting up RSS feeds?
