FY 2000 proposal 199901700
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199901700 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199901700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect & Restore Lapwai Creek |
| Proposal ID | 199901700 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Felix M. Mcgowan |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437406 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Restore Lapwai Creek to a more healthy and productive system which is capable of sustaining a self perpetuating population of anadromous and resident fish. |
| Target species | Targeted species include A-run steelhead, Coho Salmon, and Fall Chinook. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1999 | Completed a watershed assessment on Lapwai Creek |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9608600 | Clearwater Watershed Coordinator- Idaho Soil and Conervation District | Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin |
| 8335000 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery | Watershed protection and restoration for anadromous fish. |
| 9600600 | Clearwater Watershed Coordinator- Nez Perce Tribe | Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin |
| 9901600 | Protect and Restore Big Canyon Watershed | was in umbrella table |
| 9607711 | Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed | was in umbrella table |
| 9607708 | Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed | was in umbrella table |
| 9607709 | Protect and Restore Squaw to Papoose Watersheds | was in umbrella table |
| 9607707 | Focus Watershed Coordinator | was in umbrella table |
| 20087 | Protect and Restore Mill Creek | was in umbrella table |
| 20085 | Analyse and Improve Fish Screens | was in umbrella table |
| 20086 | Rehabilitate Newsome Creek | was in umbrella table |
| 20084 | Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds | 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 | $26,380 | |
| Fringe | $6,332 | |
| Supplies | $2,500 | |
| Travel | $2,380 | |
| Indirect | $9,184 | |
| Other | Vehicle costs | $2,500 |
| Subcontractor | $12,000 | |
| $61,276 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $61,276 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $61,276 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nez Perce Tribal Land Services | Lower instream restoration plan | $100,000 | unknown |
| Idaho Department of Transportation | Upper instream restortation plan | $100,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Due to inclimate weather and land ownership within the watershed there may be some schedule constraints.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until the project is scientifically justified. A comprehensive review of all habitat restoration activities in the Clearwater basin is needed.Comments: This proposal for Lapwai Creek identifies irrigation activities, and flood damage from the 1996 flood, as the primary habitat problem in the basin. The mitigation actions identified are riparian fencing and streamside revegetation. However, the proposed activities are inconsistent with the habitat problems identified, specifically those associated with the 1996 floods. Specifically, the proposal state that "… Lapwai Creek can no longer handle high flow events …". Yet it criticizes flood control activities as having "… created major habitat constraints". How would this project assure that future floods don't neutralize any habitat improvements that might be accomplished by planned activities? If, as the proposal indicates, "Stream reaches that are not channelized were heavily damaged in the 1996 flood event", is the solution channelization? Most habitat managers feel that channelization is itself responsible for habitat loss. This conflict, which appears to be central to the proposal's goals, is not addressed at all.
Comment:
Comment:
The watershed assessment being completed in 1999 will determine priorities within this watershed. Based on the similarities between proposals 9901600 and 9901700, the WTWG comments show an inconsistency in reviewing these proposals. Why in one rated Yes and the other No?Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Concern about the assumption that passive restoration will not achieve the biological objective. Given the limited availability of funding, maybe this money could be spent in areas where passive restoration will provide good benefits.Watershed is severely degraded and there is a limited potential to improve BMPs.
The non-structural approach should be given stronger consideration. Planning a structural approach in unstable watershed is very risky.
This project does not appear to be biologically, ecologically or hydrologically effective.
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 and 9608600.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $466,794 | $466,794 | $466,794 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website