FY 2000 proposal 199901700

Additional documents

TitleType
199901700 Narrative Narrative
199901700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleProtect & Restore Lapwai Creek
Proposal ID199901700
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameFelix M. Mcgowan
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437406 / felixm@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionRestore Lapwai Creek to a more healthy and productive system which is capable of sustaining a self perpetuating population of anadromous and resident fish.
Target speciesTargeted species include A-run steelhead, Coho Salmon, and Fall Chinook.
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
1999 Completed a watershed assessment on Lapwai Creek

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

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.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

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?
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
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.


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 and 9608600.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
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