FY07-09 proposal 200727900
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess Stream Habitat for Salmonid Recovery in the Lower Clearwater Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 200727900 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
| Short description | This project collects stream inventory and assessment data on 231.4 miles within the Lower Clearwater River basin. |
| Information transfer | Data provided to StreamNet; reports housed on Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District WebSite; Reports submitted to BPA website;Information submitted to Journal of Soil and Water (as appropriate), American Fisheries Society |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Lynn Rasmussen | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District | honora@turbonet.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Lynn Rasmussen | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District | honora@turbonet.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| [none] | Rattlesnake Creek | ||
| Catholic Creek | Catholic Creek | ||
| Hatwai Creek | Hatwai Creek | ||
| Howard Gulch | Howard Gulch | ||
| Jacks Creek | Jacks Creek | ||
| Cottonwood Creek | Cottonwood Creek Tributary |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESUsecondary: Chinook Snake River Fall ESU
secondary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
secondary: Coho Unspecified Population
secondary: All Resident Fish
Additional:
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199608600 | Clearwater Focus Program-IDSCC | Project provides coordination on the sub-basin level as well as assists in providing technical and administrative assistance to the District projects. |
| BPA | 199706000 | Clearwater Focus Watershed Np | Project provides coordination within the subbasin and project specific assistance through the Nez Perce Tribe. |
| Other: Division 2 of IASCD | [no entry] | North Idaho Animal Feeding Operation Project | The animal feeding operation project focuses on reduction of nutrients, sediment, and bacteria from winter livestock feeding operations and feedlots along streams within the Clearwater Subbasin. This BPA proposal through the stream habitat inventory will identify livestock operations impacting water quality and fish habitat. Location information will be forwarded to IASCD and appropriate conservation districts for follow-up with landowners to reduce livestock impacts. |
| BPA | [no entry] | Distribution and abundance monitoring of Oncorhynchus mykiss within the Lower Clearwater Subbasin | Project is a new BPA proposal request #200723300 and collects fish distribution and abundance data in the Lower Clearwater. This proposal will complement the monitoring data by collecting land use, management, erosion, and vegetative data. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Problem 11, Objective CC. | Protect the existing quality, quantity and diversity of native plant communities providing habitat to native wildlife species by preventing the introduction, reproduction and spread of noxious weeds and invasive exotic plants into and within the subbasin. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify and prioritize native plant communities for protection. Strategy #5. Increase public participation through education. |
| Environmental Problem 10, Objective AA. | Restore 500 acres of historic wetlands to proper functioning condition by 2017. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify areas for restoration-use hydric soils maps to determine the location of historic wetlands. Strategy #2. Prioritize areas for restoration using information identified in historic wetland areas, with a minimum target size. |
| Environmental Problem 10, Objective BB. | Protect and restore an additional 300 miles of riparian habitats by 2017. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify and prioritize riparian habitats for protection and restoration. Strategy #3. Protect and restore riparian habitats through increased landowner enrollment in CCRP. Strategy #4. Increase stewardship and public knowledge. |
| Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. | Reduce the extent and density of established noxious weeds. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Prioritize areas for treatment. Strategy #3. Use biological control methods. Strategy #4. Monitor and evaluate efforts. |
| Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. | Reduce the negative impacts of livestock grazing on the fish, wildlife, plant populations in the subbasin. | Clearwater | Strategy # 1. Identify and prioritize areas impacted by grazing for protection and restoration. Strategy #4: Monitor and evaluate effor to protect and restore habitats from grazing impacts. |
| Environmental Problem 19, Objective NN. | Prioritize and coordinate efforts to address data gaps. | Clearwater | Strategy #3. Integrate efforts to collect data through monitoring and evaluation efforts and other data collection efforts in the plan. |
| Environmental Problem 2, Objective B. | Increase adadromous fish productivity and production, and life stage specific survival through habitat improvement. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify and prioritize primary limiting factors in each PMU by anadromous species life stage. Strategy #2. Evaluate alternative habitat treatments and expected outcomes to address limiting factors in each PMU by species. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective P. | Reduce number of artificially blocked streams by 2017. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify need - compile and evaluate a comprehensive database of existing and potential barriers to fish migration in the Clearwater River Subbasin by 2010. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. | Reduce water temperatures to levels meeting applicable water quality standards for life stage specific needs of anadromous and native resident fish. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Inventory and prioritize areas where temperature amelioration would most benefit various target species. Strategy #2. Identify floodplains and wetlands. Strategy #5. Continue TMDL and other assessments to define localized factors. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. | Reduce instream sedimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion by 2017. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify problems and opportunities -- continue development of TMDLS, EAWSs, and other watershed scale assessments designed to define localized sediment sources and opportunites to ameliorate impacts. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective T. | By 2010, develop a nutrient allocation plan for the subbasin which investigates the potential benefits to fish and wildlife of nutrient additions or reductions. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Inventory and map all potential anthropogenic nutrient inputs including wastewater treatment facilities, industrial sources, feedlots, and non-point sources. Define nutrient poor or rich stream reaches throughout the subbasin. |
| Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. | Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity to levels consistent with other objectives outlined in the document, with particular emphasis on recovery of anadromous and fluvial stocks. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify habitats that have been simplified to a degree detrimental to anadromous and resident populations. Strategy #3. Prioritize problems, protection, and restoration. Strategy #5. Identify upland, wetland, and floodplain areas. |
| Environmental Problem 8, Objective V. | Protect remaining native prairie remnants. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Collect and map data -- inventory and map existing prairie grassland remnants, building on the work of Weddell and Lichthardt. |
| Environmental Problem 9, Objective X. | Protect mature ponderosa pine habitats. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Collect and map data-inventory and map existing mature ponderosa pine habitats. |
| Environmental Problem 9, Objective Y. | Encourage the development of 150,000 acres of additional ponderosa pine communities. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Identify and prioritize areas to develop into ponderosa pine communities. |
| Socioeconomic Problem 18, Objective LL. | Develop programs and project proposals compatible with existing community needs and that integrate with local watershed protection, restoration, and management objectives and activities. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Involve communities in subbasin and project planning. Strategy #2. Coordinate plan implentation with federal, state, tribal, local and other interests and avoid program and project duplication. |
| Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective PP. | Participate in existing, and contribute to the further development of, local watershed and technical advisory groups. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Assist SWC Districts, Watershed Advisory Groups, and other existing groups to organize project goals and implentation strategies. Strategy #2: Assist groups with programs. Strategy #3: Facilitate networking of these groups. |
| Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective RR. | Increase resource information and education delivery in the subbasin. | Clearwater | Strategy #1. Promote ridge-top-to-ridgetop stewardship of natural resources through enhanced local involvement and support. Strategy #2. Implement information/education actiions identified in mgt plan. Strategy #3. Provide information to SWCD, WAGs. |
| Terrestrial Species Problem 6, Objective M. | Increase understanding of the composition, population trends, and requirements of the terrestrial communities. | Clearwater | Strategy #2. Increase documentation - support the efforts of the Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC) to document the occurrence of rare species and work toward increased reporting of sightings. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage and Administer Project | Project management includes coordinating project activities, attending meetings, preparing statements of work, managing budgets, completing reports and responding to BPA requests. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $13,960 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Objective BB. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Socioeconomic Problem 18, Objective LL. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective PP. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective RR. |
Metrics |
||||
| Coordination | Project coordination to reduce duplication and improve project delivery. | Coordination with federal, tribal, state, local and other interests to avoid program and project duplication, increase cooperation/collaboration, coordinate efforts and education and outreach goals. Involve the community in project planning and implementation including the completion of public meetings for local input and involvement. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $7,023 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Objective BB. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective PP. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective RR. Terrestrial Species Problem 6, Objective M. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Complete environmental compliance documentation. | Work with BPA ESA coordinator to determine environmental compliance documentation needs, receive a summary of HIP BIO information for selected categories of action. Includes activities for completing NEPA checklists. | 3/1/2007 | 6/1/2007 | $8,972 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. Environmental Problem 2, Objective B. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Stream Inventory on Hatwai, Jacks, Cottonwood, Catholic, Howard Gulch, and Rattlesnake Creeks | Inventory 231.4 miles of stream habitat within the Hatwai, Jacks, Cottonwood, Catholic, Howard Gulch, and Rattlesnake Creek watersheds. These watersheds are considered face drainages of the lower Clearwater River. Inventory data is collected from May to September of each year. Inventory protocols will be adapted from the BPA project number 2002-070-00 "Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Lapwai Creek Watershed". Inventories are completed by a 3 to 4 person field crew who walk identified stream reaches and collect data as outlined in the protocol. | 5/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $218,846 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 11, Objective CC. Environmental Problem 10, Objective AA. Environmental Problem 10, Objective BB. Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. Environmental Problem 19, Objective NN. Environmental Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 7, Objective P. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. Environmental Problem 7, Objective T. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. Environmental Problem 8, Objective V. Environmental Problem 9, Objective X. Environmental Problem 9, Objective Y. Terrestrial Species Problem 6, Objective M. |
Metrics |
||||
| Create/Manage/Maintain Database | Create stream inventory database. | Create a database and associated spatial layer to manage and analyze the stream inventory and assessment data. Database format will be adapted from the BPA project number 2002-070-00 "Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Lapwai Creek Watershed". Data will be linked to spatial coverages. Data entry components will be completed by the NPSWCD. GIS coverages will be completed by a subcontractor. | 12/1/2007 | 2/28/2009 | $10,055 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 11, Objective CC. Environmental Problem 10, Objective AA. Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. Environmental Problem 19, Objective NN. Environmental Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 7, Objective P. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Analyze stream inventory data | Analyze stream inventory data to summarize fish habitat limiting factors, quantify data collected, and prioritize reaches for future treatment. | 12/1/2007 | 12/30/2009 | $10,064 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 11, Objective CC. Environmental Problem 10, Objective AA. Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. Environmental Problem 12, Objective EE. Environmental Problem 2, Objective B. Environmental Problem 7, Objective P. Environmental Problem 7, Objective Q. Environmental Problem 7, Objective U. |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Lower Clearwater inventory and assessment report. | Prepare a report of inventory and assessment findings and develop a restoration plan to address identified fish habitat limitations. | 10/1/2009 | 2/28/2010 | $11,909 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 10, Objective AA. Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. Environmental Problem 7, Objective T. |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Stream temperature data collection. | Collect stream water temperature at 7 sites within the watersheds. The sites are selected through a coordinated effort with the Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Onset Hobo temperature dataloggers are used to measure stream water temperatures. The loggers consist of logger, submersible case and chain. The loggers are placed in the stream in March of each year and are retrieved in November of each year. | 3/1/2007 | 11/30/2009 | $7,910 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 19, Objective NN. Environmental Problem 7, Objective S. |
Metrics |
||||
| Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Disseminate data to StreamNet, CDC, and BPA. | Provide stream temperature raw data to StreamNet on an annual basis. Provide summary stream inventory data to StreamNet and BPA after data has been compiled and analyzed. Send documentation of any rare species to CDC. | 12/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $6,725 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 7, Objective T. Terrestrial Species Problem 6, Objective M. |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove vegetation | Release biocontrol agents for yellow starthistle control. | Using US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe BioControl Center, and Univeristy of Idaho protocols, release biocontrol agents within the identified watersheds. A release consists of 300 insects. Releases are made from June through July each year. The target is to complete 5 releases for each watershed. Work for this task will be completed by a subcontrator. | 6/1/2007 | 7/30/2009 | $18,715 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 11, Objective DD. |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Educate and inform project area landowners and general public. | Provide fish habitat related educational materials to watershed landowners. Educational materials have been developed through other BPA projects (2002-070-00, 1999-015-00). Additional printings of these materials will be made and distributed to landowners. Project specific information, status reports, and summaries will be disseminated through newsletter articles using the NPSWCD newsletter. | 3/1/2007 | 2/28/2010 | $7,916 |
|
Biological objectives Environmental Problem 11, Objective CC. Environmental Problem 10, Objective BB. Socioeconomic Problem 18, Objective LL. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective PP. Socioeconomic Problem 21, Objective RR. |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead | indirect (rate is 15%) | $13,255 | $11,598 | $11,972 |
| Supplies | field supplies, office supplies, printing supplies, | $9,600 | $9,600 | $9,600 |
| Personnel | includes part time project leader and summer field technicians | $53,535 | $51,688 | $56,500 |
| Other | training | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
| Travel | travel is for anticipated BPA meetings | $2,421 | $2,421 | $2,421 |
| Other | Telephone | $800 | $800 | $800 |
| Other | Materials: gps units, survey equipment, temperature gages, digital cameras. | $6,004 | $800 | $800 |
| Other | repairs and maintenance | $750 | $750 | $750 |
| Other | Computers, software | $6,250 | $2,250 | $0 |
| Other | office rent | $2,400 | $2,400 | $2,400 |
| Capital Equipment | atv/trailer | $5,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Overhead | consultants and contracts | $13,500 | $7,000 | $7,000 |
| Other | Vehicle lease, mileage, and POV mileage | $8,010 | $8,010 | $8,010 |
| Totals | $122,525 | $98,317 | $101,253 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $322,095 |
| Total work element budget: | $322,095 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Americorps | data collection, outreach, biocontrol release | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| HIP | Cost-share for BMPs | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Idaho Department of Agriculture | field crew training, collection of inventory data, data analysis, data summary | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District | administrative oversight, bookkeeping | $2,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Pheasants Forever | Cost-share for BMPs | $1,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $29,000 | $29,000 | $29,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: Project will be completed in 2009. |
Future O&M costs: Project is for inventory and assessment. No project installation occurs through the proposal.
Termination date: 2/28/2010
Comments: Project is for inventory and assessment of stream habitat. If implementation measures are identified through the assessment, a new proposal would be developed.
Final deliverables: Inventory and assessment report and associated spatial layer.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The project goal is to complete a stream health assessment in order to identify priority areas for fish habitat restoration using the SVAP – stream visual assessment protocol (NRCS) – in six small lower Clearwater mainstem tributaries. There is a mix of land-based (plants) and aquatic elements in the proposal. The work in this proposal would do no harm, but unfortunately it would do nothing for the steelhead that spawn in at least two of the six streams. The six streams represent the extreme in terms of environmental conditions (summer flow/temp/pikeminnow predation). The fish still have a toehold, but huge improvements would be needed. Consequently the area is a low priority for an assessment. It will include private landowners, which is good. They are doing this work in Lapwai and Big Canyon creeks but are not delivering the goods for fish. They are not working closely with the fish and wildlife agencies. The technical and scientific background for the proposal is contradictory and incomplete. There apparently has been some empirical field data collected - Kucera 1983 and 1986. But this is cited in various locations rather than being summarized with a conclusion of why it is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the inventory and assessment proposed here. There has been some assessment, for example in the second paragraph, "Excellent opportunities exist for restoration and protection activities in these small streams," but no attribution of the assessment is given. It is not clear whether the assessment involved evaluating field data or professional judgment of fishery biologists. Some of the assessment rates the habitat as poor. This seems at odds with the prior statement that excellent opportunities for restoration are available. There is insufficient detail on development of an evaluation plan for a biological response. In response, please explain why the Kucera data is insufficient for the inventory and assessment proposed here. Please explain the details of your assessment and include details on how you will detect a biological response. Proponents suggest there are two elements to a stream inventory/assessment protocol; reach identification and land use identification, and measuring assessment elements (they mention 15). Some of the measured assessment elements listed are actually interpretations from some sort of data, for example hydrologic alteration, and nutrient enrichment. The SVAP assessments may be a good educational and public involvement tool, but by itself it’s a snapshot approach that has added virtually nothing to what is already known. A more complete inventory/assessment would recognize that data are collected on indicator variables, these are analyzed and interpreted to assess evidence of hydrologic alteration or nutrient enrichment, and that some method then needs to be used to infer some historic state of these variables, the current state, and a possible future state based on remediation. The inventory and assessment is adequate for BMP implementation, but without effective M&E. Inventory and assessment should use protocols adopted throughout the subbasin and endorsed by CSMEP and/or PNAMP. Site selection should be randomized. In response, please provide details to show that your proposal is consistent with the standards described in the previous two paragraphs. Additional comments: How does "Establish yellow star-thistle biocontrol agents on 50 acres of rangeland" fit into this proposal. It seems to come out of nowhere. The primary value of the project is educational, performing the sorely needed role of involving private landowners that will be pivotal in any continued rehabilitation of these six streams. An earlier demonstration project in Hatwai Creek has proven to be very effective in engaging local landowners.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: The project goal is to complete a stream health assessment in order to identify priority areas for fish habitat restoration using the SVAP – stream visual assessment protocol (NRCS) – in six small lower Clearwater mainstem tributaries. There is a mix of land-based (plants) and aquatic elements in the proposal. The work in this proposal would do no harm, but unfortunately it would do nothing for the steelhead that spawn in at least two of the six streams. The six streams represent the extreme in terms of environmental conditions (summer flow/temp/pikeminnow predation). The fish still have a toehold, but huge improvements would be needed. Consequently the area is a low priority for an assessment. It will include private landowners, which is good. They are doing this work in Lapwai and Big Canyon creeks but are not delivering the goods for fish. They are not working closely with the fish and wildlife agencies. The technical and scientific background for the proposal is contradictory and incomplete. There apparently has been some empirical field data collected - Kucera 1983 and 1986. But this is cited in various locations rather than being summarized with a conclusion of why it is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the inventory and assessment proposed here. There has been some assessment, for example in the second paragraph, "Excellent opportunities exist for restoration and protection activities in these small streams," but no attribution of the assessment is given. It is not clear whether the assessment involved evaluating field data or professional judgment of fishery biologists. Some of the assessment rates the habitat as poor. This seems at odds with the prior statement that excellent opportunities for restoration are available. There is insufficient detail on development of an evaluation plan for a biological response. In response, please explain why the Kucera data is insufficient for the inventory and assessment proposed here. Please explain the details of your assessment and include details on how you will detect a biological response. Proponents suggest there are two elements to a stream inventory/assessment protocol; reach identification and land use identification, and measuring assessment elements (they mention 15). Some of the measured assessment elements listed are actually interpretations from some sort of data, for example hydrologic alteration, and nutrient enrichment. The SVAP assessments may be a good educational and public involvement tool, but by itself it’s a snapshot approach that has added virtually nothing to what is already known. A more complete inventory/assessment would recognize that data are collected on indicator variables, these are analyzed and interpreted to assess evidence of hydrologic alteration or nutrient enrichment, and that some method then needs to be used to infer some historic state of these variables, the current state, and a possible future state based on remediation. The inventory and assessment is adequate for BMP implementation, but without effective M&E. Inventory and assessment should use protocols adopted throughout the subbasin and endorsed by CSMEP and/or PNAMP. Site selection should be randomized. In response, please provide details to show that your proposal is consistent with the standards described in the previous two paragraphs. Additional comments: How does "Establish yellow star-thistle biocontrol agents on 50 acres of rangeland" fit into this proposal. It seems to come out of nowhere. The primary value of the project is educational, performing the sorely needed role of involving private landowners that will be pivotal in any continued rehabilitation of these six streams. An earlier demonstration project in Hatwai Creek has proven to be very effective in engaging local landowners.