FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28004

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
28004 Narrative	Narrative
28004 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
28004 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Lawyer Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project
Proposal ID	28004
Organization	Lewis Soil Conservation District (Lewis SCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Sharon Kinzer
Mailing address	P.O. Box 237 Nezperce, ID 83543
Phone / email	2089372673 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	John Miller, District Chairman
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Clearwater
Short description	Reduce sedimentation to improve instream habitat in Lawyer Creek and the lower Clearwater River, and improve upland water storage by implementing best management practices for sediment reduction and water retention.
Target species	Primarily Steelhead trout (A-run) and spring Chinook Salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Headwaters (near Cottonwood Butte)
		Mouth (Lawyer Creek and Clearwater River confluence near Kamiah, Idaho)
46.2256	-116.0117	Lawyer Creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
Habitat RPA Action 151
Habitat RPA Action 153

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1998-2001	Little Canyon Creek Watershed Assessment-sponsored by Lewis SCD, performed by USDA-NRCS
on-going	Holes-Long Hollow State Agricultural Water Quality Project: administered through the Lewis SCD, implementing enhanced conservation efforts on cropland to reduce erosion and encourage enhanced soil moisture holding capacity.
on-going	Conservation Reserve Program: administered through USDA-NRCS personnel in Nezperce, targeted at farmers in Lewis County, implementing a program to install permanent vegetative cover, for a duration of time, on fields once annually cropped.
on-going	Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: administered through USDA-NRCS personnel in Nezperce, targeted at farmers and ranchers in Lewis County, implementing a program to install riparian improvement and protection practices.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199608600	Clearwater Basin Focus Watershed Program	Subbasin Planning and Coordination
199901400	Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project	Similar watersheds and present land use management schemes, as well as similar identified problems in fisheries.
199706000	Clearwater Basin Focus Watershed Program-funded by Tribal assessment.	By developing a sediment prediction and delivery model and applying a GIS-based distributed hydrologic model for the basin, future land use management plans can be produced and implememnted to improve fish habitats.
0	Nez Perce Tribe A-run Fish Status Proposal	Analysis of A-run steelhead populations and distribution will help direct future land use management activities and planning efforts.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Initiate Project Plan	a. Lewis SCD initiate contract with selected consultant, review project.	2002	$2,000
	b. Review and update USDA NRCS standards and specifications for planned BMPs. Determine and document any additional standards and specifications that the Lewis SCD elects to apply.	ongoing	$2,000	Yes
2. Initiate Project Participation	a. Lewis SCD and Clearwater Focus Watershed Program co-sponsor coordinate and present initial public meeting.	ongoing	$4,300
	b. Initiate contact with landowner/operators within project area.	ongoing	$3,500	Yes
3. Evaluate BMP Implementation Needs	a. Conduct field inventory, identify specific problems, and solutions.	ongoing	$5,500	Yes
	b. Develop precursor designs on proposed solutions.	ongoing	$6,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Initiate Project Plan	2003	2004	$4,000
2. Initiate Project Participation	2003	2004	$7,800
3. Evaluate BMP Implementation Needs	2003	2004	$11,500

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$23,300	$23,300

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
4. BMP Implementation	a. Communication with cooperators regarding selected practices.	ongoing	$2,000	Yes
	b. Prepare/update contractors list.	ongoing	$2,000
	c. Schedule BMP Implementation with cooperators.	ongoing	$3,000	Yes
	d. Finalize designs.	ongoing	$4,500	Yes
	e. Layout, mark and flag BMP implementation designs.	ongoing	$4,500	Yes
	f. Coordinate construction and tillage practices (review specifications, designs and requirements with cooperators).	ongoing	$3,000	Yes
	g. Inspect implementation activities and final contractual agreements with cooperators for BMP implementation (including $150,000 for BMP component costs and implementation, see Part 2. Project Narrative, Sect. f. Proposal Objectives, Tasks and Methods).	ongoing	$154,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
4. BMP Implementation	2003	2004	$346,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$173,000	$173,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
7. Documentation and Reporting	a. Prepare quarterly reports including activities, problems encountered, and plan for the following quarter.	ongoing	$1,100
	b. Prepare end of year report to recap BMPs implemented, evaluate BMP effectiveness, and make recommendations for future work.	ongoing	$900	Yes
	c. Coordinate annual tour of watershed implementation activities and host discussion and review of monitoring results and evaluation.	ongoing	$1,200	Yes
	d. Initiate feedback loop mechanism	ongoing	$2,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
7. Documentation and Reporting	2003	2004	$10,400

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$5,200	$5,200

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
5. Survey baseline instream and riparian habitat conditions	a. Survey instream and riaprian habitat conditions in Lawyer Creek in summer of 2002 to establish baseline set of data	2002	$30,000	Yes
6. Monitor water quality parameters	a. Monitoring will take place on a monthly basis to track total suspended solids, turbidity, water temperature and discharge.	ongoing	$15,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
5. Survey baseline instream and riparian habitat conditions	2003	2004	$0
6. Monitor water quality parameters	2003	2004	$30,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$15,000	$15,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: Project coordinator	$37,000
Supplies	BMP components (intake risers, underground outlets, erosion control fabric), general office supplies	$62,000
Travel	Calculated at $0.35/mile	$4,300
Indirect	Administrative overhead (8%)	$8,200
Subcontractor	Best Management Practice implementation ($90,000)	$90,000
Subcontractor	Monitoring ($45,000)	$45,000
		$246,500

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$246,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$246,500
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

Response needed. This project's part of the field tour was very informative on agricultural aspects and on sediment yield from treated vs. untreated cropland. Effectiveness of the no-till cropping BMP is particularly impressive. The proposal helps define the problem with pertinent background information on wild fish stocks, however, it neither specifies M&E of fish population responses under the project nor states coordination with any other project with respect to biological M&E. The oral presentation was clear but had the disadvantage of revealing a certain lack of coordination of the project with a related project, 28021, i.e., the BMPs for 28004 should accommodate some of the needs expressed in 28021. Personnel from both projects should consult and reach agreements.

The proposal discusses (p. 11) its relationship to Project 28029 (though the number apparently did not exist at time of writing) and states that the two are complementary and non-duplicative.

A modeling analysis suggested that higher peak flows and greater volume of flow have resulted from past agricultural practices. What does this same model suggest regarding the benefits of the work proposed here? It is later suggested in the proposal that 10-yr peak flows could be reduced by 39% by a basin-wide change in land use. Is a basin-wide change in land use planned? If not, how much of an impact might be anticipated? To answer this, some indication of the area treated and benefit of the several BMPs would have to be quantified but that information is lacking. Please provide.

This is basic habitat management, protection and rehabilitation, but it is important that the effort flows from a comprehensive watershed management plan that begins with a condition assessment. To address the limiting factors that a well-planned and documented assessment should reveal, information on the conditions and their effect on survival through freshwater life stages of salmonids must be indicated or referenced. What species and what life stages are negatively responding to low flows, high temperatures, and sedimentation, or a lack of quality pools and cover, how, where and when, and to what comparative level? Of these, which is the priority and how might they be addressed?

This proposal focuses only on the upland work using BMPs. An excellent field presentation of innovative approaches to be included under this land use treatment was provided. BMPs seem appropriate, but should work not also include riparian silviculture and in-stream habitat? Proper functioning condition includes all of the ecosystem components, thus this proposal must be tied to the overall watershed assessment and prescription. Provide this document.

As a treatment approach, BMPs are attractive, and a well-planned adaptive management experiment in use of BMPs may be possible with some coordinated effort among sub-basins. Some tributaries might be selected for treatment with appropriate BMPs while others are not, recognizing that there will also be a need to consider the effect of environmental variability in the experiment design and analysis. The advice of a biometrician and experimental analyst is suggested, along with a cooperative effort from a school of agriculture and land use or ecology for more detailed work. Thus, three layers of response monitoring are suggested, including a before-after trend in physical variables (depending on the treatment, but likely flow, temperature and sediment), more detailed assessment of the physical and biological (fish) response as part of an overall basin approach, and/or experimental research on BMPs. Which layer do they choose? Please provide a summary of how this work was (will be) coordinated through the Focus Group (199706000 and 199608600).

Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling approaches, as suggested, can be instructive, but a control and treatment comparison of flow regimes, temperature, sedimentation (TDS?) and the fish response must be included, along with a clear indication of this project's connection with a basin-wide program of M&E. Likewise, an analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., how much work must be completed before a positive impact is measurable, or what is the likelihood of failure?).

Sharon Kinzer et al provide several newsletters annually, an excellent approach for promoting participation and information exchange locally, but more detailed and scientific reporting is also required, including not only the work accomplishments but also information on response indicators and success or failure in meeting the goals of protecting and enhancing fish production.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

M4 - Significant cost share is described in the narrative portion of the proposal although it is not mentioned in the budget portion of the proposal.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. The proponents need to complete a watershed assessment that allows identification of critical salmonid life stage usage in the watershed and geographic portions of the basin that warrant restoration and protection activity, but the proposal does not lay out the objective of doing a watershed assessment in sufficient detail. This project is of low priority. It was not demonstrated in the review process that Lawyer Creek has the potential for significant fish production. No work should continue until a watershed assessment is complete and there is clear indication of how this project will be monitored. No work on limiting factors to salmonid life stages has been conducted, or seems in the plans, but such work should follow from the fish habitat assessment as part of an overall watershed assessment. Clearly defined and acceptable WA procedures are required, standardized for the subbasin and basin. For M&E, the advice of a biometrician and experimental analyst is recommended, along with a cooperative effort from a school of agriculture/land use or school of ecology for more detailed work. Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling approaches, as suggested in the proposal, can be instructive, but a control and treatment comparison of flow regimes, temperature, sedimentation and the fish response must be included, along with a clear indication of this project's connection with a basinwide program of M&E. Likewise, an analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., indicate the amount of work required before a positive impact is measurable, and indicate the likelihood of failure).

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Could increase survival by contributing to improvement of water quality and reduction of erratic flow regimes through the implementation of upland agricultural BMPs. However, lack of specifics in proposal prevents evaluation. The target species, a steelhead population, has not been documented in the sub-watershed

Comments
One portion of the BMPs is the protection of riparian areas through riparian buffers, but the proposal does not address the period of time of those buffers, nor how much of this project will be devoted to buffers. Project proponents stated at the project review that the project will follow NRCS standards and that landowners have to commit to a minimum of 10 years. Project could be consistent with RPA 153 if permanent or long term easement, at least > 15 years. This project also does not seem to address the primary limiting factors in the subbasin as identified by the proposal. Like many habitat projects this is a good idea, and it won't hurt, but we question how much it can help anadromous habitat when 80% of the drainage is dry-farm wheat and lentils and the remaining 20% has been logged and grazed intensively for 100 years. Benefits to fish of applying BMPs in a small area will be hard to measure.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
D

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153)

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: