FY 1999 proposal 9122

Additional documents

TitleType
9122 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRehabilitate Lapwai Creek
Proposal ID9122
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameIra Jones
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437406 / iraj@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionRestore Lapwai Creek to improve fish habitat and decrease negative effects of flood events within the drainage.
Target speciesCoho, Steelhead
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8909800 Idaho Supplementation Studies Habitat improvement for supplementation populations
9608600 Clearwater Watershed Coordinator-Idaho Soil and Conservation District Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin.
9600600 Clearwater Watershed Coordinator-Nez Perce Tribe Coordinate all projects within the Clearwater Subbasin.
8909802 Nez Perce Tribal Research Research anadromous species within the Clearwater Subbasin.
83350 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Watershed protection and restoration for anadromous fish.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $86,085
Fringe $9,683
Supplies $1,500
Travel $2,500
Indirect $31,364
Subcontractor Idaho Department of Transportation; Earth Conservation Corp.- Salmon Corp.- Nez Perce $337,500
Other $8,640
Other $8,640
$485,912
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$485,912
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$485,912
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: EXISTING SCHEDULES FOR THE 1999 BUDGET YEAR MAY CHANGE DUE TO WEATHER CONDITIONS. THERE ARE ALSO SMALL NUMBERS OF FISH STILL USING THE STREAM,THEREFORE, WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO LEAVE THE STREAM DURING TIMES OF SPAWNING AND MIGRATION OF ADULTS.


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: Need to define specific on-the-ground projects, and present them to the CBFWA for BPA and NPPC consideration for funding

Technical Issue: Need to clearly explain why this action is appropriate for an unstable watershed.

Management Issue: Explain how this project is coordinated with the surrounding projects associated with the designated Clearwater Focus Watershed.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Half of budget deferred due to budget constraints
Recommendation:
Inadequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal appears to be almost solely a hard-engineering project. No justification is given for the actions to be taken and existing damage is not described in adequate detail. There is no evidence that watershed context has been considered. The plan lacks evidence of fish habitat knowledge. It is unclear that a channel form suitable for salmon or trout will be restored. The proposal does not say how "drop structures" are designed or how they will be built, and the importance of large woody debris is ignored. Council should consider if this project is appropriate for BPA funding.