FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 200205000
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 |
|---|---|
| 27001 Narrative | Narrative |
| 27001 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| Letter from Asotin Co. Conservation District to ISRP RE: Cover Letter for Responses to Proposed Project # 27001 | Response Attachment |
| Blue Mountain: Asotin Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Blue Mountain: Asotin Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Asotin County Riparian Buffer and Couse and Tenmile Creeks Protection and Implementation Project |
| Proposal ID | 200205000 |
| Organization | Asotin County Conservation District (ACCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Bradley J. Johnson |
| Mailing address | 720 Sixth St., Ste B Clarkston, WA 99403 |
| Phone / email | 5097588012 / brad-johnson@wa.nacdnet.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Bradley J. Johnson |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Asotin |
| Short description | Implement BMP's to protect and enhance watersheds in Asotin County with ESA listed steelhead and chinook. Utilize cost-share from USDA, WCC and SFRB as match to BPA Funds to implement riparian buffers under the CREP Program (RPA Actions 152 & 153). |
| Target species | Snake River steelhead, fall and spring chinook and resident rainbow / redband trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.2 | -116.9805 | Lower Couse Creek watershed - riparian and instream projects in priority areas and 5 Yr Direct Seed Program with other listed BMP's in uplands to reduce stream sedimentation from cropland |
| 46.11 | -117.05 | Upper Couse Creek watershed and Tenmile watershed - riparian and instream projects in priority areas and 5 Yr Direct Seed Program with other listed BMP's in uplands to reduce sedimentation |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 153 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/BPA | 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. |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| BPA Funds have not been utilized outside Asotin Creek watershed list of accomplishments will be from other funding. | |
| Upland BMPs completed in cooperation with local landowners and ACCD from 1996 - 2001 utilizing WCC & SRFB | |
| 1996 | 2 sediment basins constructed. |
| 1996 | 970 acres of strip cropping completed. |
| 1996 | 75,645 ft. of terraces constructed |
| 1997 | 75,645 ft. of terraces constructed |
| 1997 | 1 multipurpose pond installed |
| 1997 | 243 ac of pasture/hayland planting completed |
| 1997 | 9 sediment basins constructed and 2 acres of critical area on basin planted |
| 1997 | 67,309 ft of terraces installed |
| 1998 | 1,200 ft of grassed waterway installed |
| 1998 | 60 ac of pasture/hayland planting completed |
| 1998 | 2 sediment basins constructed |
| 1998 | 69 ac of strip cropping completed |
| 1998 | 500 ft of terrace construction |
| 1999 | 700 ac planted in the five-year direct seed program funded by SRFB |
| 1999 | 587 ac planted in the one-year direct seed program funded by WCC |
| 1999 | 162 ac pasture/hayland planting completed |
| 1999 | 1 sediment basin constructed |
| 1999 | 40,255 ft of terraces installed |
| 1999 | 1 trough/tank with 1,132 ft. of pipeline installed |
| 2000 | 500 ac planted in the five-year direct seed program funded by SRFB |
| 2000 | 1,242 ac planted in the one-year direct seed program funded by WCC |
| 2000 | 5,800 ft of fencing installed |
| 2000 | 663 ac of pasture/hayland planting completed |
| 2000 | 366 ft of riparian fencing installed |
| 2000 | 17 sediment basins constructed with 7 ac of critical area planted |
| 2000 | 2 spring developments completed |
| 2001 | 433 ac planted in the five-year direct seed program funded by SRFB |
| 2001 | 694 ac planted in the one-year direct seed program funded by WCC |
| 2001 | 3 sediment basins constructed |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199401805 | Continue Coordination and Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects | "Model Watershed" project that began in the early 90's on Asotin Creek. Previous projects completed on Asotin Creek have inspired landowners throughout the county to participate with ACCD. Trust is at a peak both with local, state and federal agencies |
| Protecting and Restoring Asotin Creek | "New" project proposed for FY 2002 - 2006 funding for Upper watershed sedimentation issues on Forest Service, WDFW, and private land roads issues. Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program. | |
| Upland Implementation Grant | WCC Grant to improve water quality and install upland BMP's. Partner funds to help off-set restoration costs. | |
| WCC CREP Grant | Partner CREP Grant and BPA funds to off-set high cost of fencing, alternative water, and rental payments for riparian buffers | |
| Future SRFB Grant | Partnering funding sources so that one entity is not taking on all the projects costs. Spreading the wealth and informing and educating our local youth, landowners and agency representative of the sensative resource issues. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coordinate Asotin County and Riparian Buffer Projects Prioritization and Planning | a. Administer, coordinate, and communicate watershed activities to residence and agencies | 5 | $3,200 | |
| b. Coordinate citizen / agency task groups | 5 | $4,000 | ||
| c. Develop project proposals and submit | 5 | $1,500 | ||
| d. Submit NEPA & BA's thru BPA to NMFS & USFWS for concurrence of instream habitat projects | 5 | $2,000 | ||
| e. Produce final report of accomplishments for habitat projects and report M&E analysis and validation | 5 | $4,000 | ||
| 2. Implement 22 new CRP / CREP riparian buffer system agreements with participating landowners on 26 Miles of stream (52 miles of streambank) to improve 1,323 riparian acres | a. Meet with interested landowners on site and assess eligibility of stream reach for buffer program. The objectives are already met by current sign-up and we will possibly have more enrolled. | 5 | $4,500 | |
| b. Obtain landowner sign-ups | 5 | $2,500 | ||
| c. Develop CRP / CREP plan for review and approval, including planting prescriptions, fencing design, water developments and practice elements as necessary | 5 | $21,500 | ||
| d. Enter into protective conservation agreements with participating landowners for contiguous stream reaches in good condition | 5 | $1,000 | ||
| e. Progress reporting and documentation | 5 | $2,800 | ||
| 3. Secure additional funding and cooperative partnerships | a. Match funds with local, state and federal agencies whenever possible | 5 | $2,000 | |
| b. Initiate cost-share programs through Asotin County in areas with ESA species | 5 | $1,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 (Tasks a - e) | 2003 | 2006 | $102,000 |
| Objective 2 (Tasks a - e) | 2003 | 2006 | $72,000 |
| Objective 3 (Tasks a - b) | 2003 | 2006 | $16,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $50,000 | $45,000 | $45,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduce instream summer water temperature to 18 c. Technical Consensus, "Asotin Creek Subbasin Summary" and will also be documented in Limiting Factors Analysis that will be completed for WRIA #35 by WCC. | a. Riparian fencing and alternative water developments to reduce direct animal pressure on stream identified with ESA species. Partner with CREP and SRFB to cost-share project costs. | 5 | $20,000 | Yes |
| b. Riparian planting projects for long-term LWD recruitment, shade and cover. Partner with CREP and SRFB to accomplish more acres and stream miles | 5 | $20,000 | Yes | |
| c. Jump-start LWD component by incorporating it into complex habitat and streambanks for cover | 5 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| d. Increase # of pools and decrease stream width-to-depth ratios by installing geomorphic restoration projects in prioritized stream reaches to reduce stream temperatures | 5 | $25,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Increase quality of pools w/ LWD to nine pools per mile | a. Install instream habitat projects according to geomorphic stream classification in priority areas | 5 | $10,000 | Yes |
| b. Identify properly functioning stream reaches and protect those areas. Enroll into CRP/CREP or identified programs. | 3 | $5,000 | ||
| 3. Reduce sediment deposition in spawning gravels by reducing cropland erosion and stabilizing streambanks | a. Continue upland cost-share for sediment reduction practices (direct seed, pasture/hayland, sediment basins and noxious weed control | 5 | $36,000 | |
| b. Instream structures geomorphically designed to scour and sort spawning gravels and re-establish floodplains and depositional features | 5 | $13,200 | Yes | |
| c. Riparian fencing, alternative water and plantings associated with CREP to stabilize and recruit LWD on streambanks | 5 | $20,000 | Yes | |
| 4. Provide technical assistance during implementation | a. After CRP / CREP contracts approved, provide additional technical assistance to implement approved plans | 3 | $2,000 | |
| b. Provide cost-share for conservation practices identifed to expand and compliment CRP / CREP projects | 5 | $40,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 (Tasks a - d) | 2003 | 2006 | $280,000 |
| Objective 2 (Tasks a - d) | 2003 | 2006 | $60,000 |
| Objective 3 (Tasks a - c) | 2003 | 2006 | $276,800 |
| Objective 4 (Tasks a - b) | 2003 | 2206 | $164,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $196,200 | $196,200 | $194,200 | $194,200 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A Landowner responsibility | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Not Applicable | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Planning, coordinating and implementing project assessments and monitoring | a. Fund priority monitoring projects outside Asotin Creek. | 5 | $30,000 | Yes |
| b. Expand WDFW pre- and post-habitat assessments on instream structures outside Asotin Creek | 5 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| c. Continue WDFW steelhead spawner utilization and summer-time juvenile densities on Couse and Tenmile | 5 | $10,000 | Yes | |
| d. Complete and submit reports describing assessments and monitoring results | 5 | $3,000 | ||
| 2. Verify CRP / CREP buffers are installed and functioning according to plan | a. Inspect riparian protective measures cost-shared for continuing functionality and effectiveness | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1 (Tasks a -d) | 2003 | 2006 | $192,000 |
| Objective 2 (Task a) | 2003 | 2005 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $48,000 | $48,000 | $48,000 | $48,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 | $46,400 |
| Fringe | 40 % MW Lead, 50% CREP, 10% Admin. Ass | $11,600 |
| Supplies | propose using 199401805 funds | $0 |
| Travel | propose using 199401805 funds | $0 |
| NEPA | and Biological Assessment preparation | $2,000 |
| Subcontractor | Riparian fencing, instream and monitoring contracts. We solicite bids for all projects | $158,200 |
| Other | Upland BMP's completed with Cost-Share from Private Landowners | $76,000 |
| $294,200 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $294,200 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $294,200 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
This is a new project proposal for Asotin County and includes projects in Couse Creek and Tenmile Creek, which are tributaries to the Snake River and were recently identified as important streams for spawning and rearing steelhead and wild rainbow / redband trout.
Reason for change in scope
The scope of work will be similar to the Asotin Creek Model Watershed Project "Continued Coordination and Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed". This is a new proposal, but you cannot look past the success that has been built and that continues to grow in the Asotin Creek watershed. If watershed habitat is a focus, the "Model Watersheds" are an example of what can be accomplished with local input and control with oversight from technical agecies.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NRCS | Vehicles, gas, office space, phone, internet | $40,000 | in-kind |
| Local Landowners | Cost-Share for upland and riparian projects | $415,000 | cash |
| WA Salmon Recovery Funding Board | Instream and riparian proposed grants | $200,000 | cash |
| USDA Farm Service Agency | CREP Riparian Cost-Share Program (50%) | $500,000 | cash |
| USDA Farm Service Agency | Practice Incentive Payment (40%) | $400,000 | cash |
| USDA Farm Service Agency | 10 - 15 Yr Lease on CREP Acres | $780,000 | cash |
| WCC CREP Grant | CREP Riparian Cost-Share Program (10%) | $100,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
The CREP Program is ready to explode in this county. ESA listed salmonids will benefit from this program throughout the watersheds in Asotin County. Historically we only utilized BPA funds for protection and restoration projects in the Asotin Creek watershed when in fact wild steelhead are spawning and rearing in most free flowing creeks and streams outside the watershed. Local technical consensus, "Asotin Creek Subbasin Summary" and local landowners and citizens have recognized these stocks as significant to Asotin County watershed's overall health. We envision having past accomplishments that mirror the Asotin Creek projects. 80% of funding requested from this proposal will be for on-the-ground projects or monitoring. The reason for the reduction in FY 2005 and 2006 is the CREP Lead funding will be provided by WCC funding. Current funding levels from the WCC do not allow the ACCD to hire an additional position. This funding will be for .40 FTE for CREP Lead Position for the first two years and be partnered with Asotin Creek BPA and WCC funds to utilze this position throughout the entire county in ESA listed streams.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. Questions raised above concerning Project 199401805 also apply to this project. This proposal emphasizes buffers for riparian areas but also includes actions to ensure Best Management (BMP) activities on uplands and some instream work. The latter two are barely described in the proposal, though the site visit and presentation indicate that sediment basins and direct seed agriculture are the upland actions. The proposal focuses on administrative tasks rather than on the science to be applied, so is very hard to follow and evaluate. A response needs to focus on the actions to be taken, and especially to develop and justify these for the active instream work, which is barely described. Further, noxious weed control needs explanation and justification. These active management-intensive techniques require M&E to justify their costs, quantify their environmental side-effects, and test their effectiveness. The M&E is limited to a list of tasks, with no detail as to methods or how they will address monitoring and evaluation goals. The relationship to the proposal above (199401805) is not entirely clear, though it may be in the proposal somewhere.A major question is whether the expected benefits of the direct seeding program can be realized and whether these benefits will compel local farmers to continue direct seed practices after the initial incentive programs end. The no-till or direct seeding component of the project needs to include or be linked to an economic analysis. Will the short-term incentives result in a lasting change? What is the long-term effect of more intensive use of herbicides with no-till and direct seed? Implementation of the CREP and direct seed incentive programs is presently limited by lack of adequate staffing. Another major question is whether the expected sediment reductions are occurring, and most importantly, whether these can be directly related to changes in salmonid abundance.
Finally, there is a need for stronger justifications for the role of active vs. passive stream restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to take in the restoration programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What happens when a big flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? This and many other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly engineered meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these initial steps may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future hydrologic events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly engineered channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated stream courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing or rip rapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in stream and river corridors.
The field tour and presentation indicated an overemphasis on quick-fix methods of stream channel "stabilization." Excessive reliance on construction of hard (rockwork) structures may be creating an inflexible channel. This prevents another approach of the project, namely, developing riparian vegetation, from performing what should be one of its primary purposes: retarding bank erosion, while letting the channel gradually "meander and return to natural functions". The project could form more and better salmonid habitat (including pools) in the long run and be in closer keeping with stream restoration science by emphasizing natural channel formation (course migration, damped by riparian vegetation) rather than the hard engineering now being used. In the project, riparian vegetation seems to be viewed almost solely as a way to reduce summer temperature; its function as structural habitat for fish and as a binder of stream bank soils should also be prominently recognized.
Comment:
The proposed work would allow for stabilizing channel conditions in Tenmile and Couse creeks (creeks which are major producers of sediment to the Snake River). With increased water quality resulting from this work, the WDFW suggests there would be an increase in listed fall chinook spawning at the mouths of the creeks; however, reviewers expressed concern that measurable outcomes are absent from many of the objectives. Although the proposal lacks monitoring for temperature and sediment the work, such parameters are being monitored. The CREP leases will be for 15 years. Reviewers suggest results from this work would aid management from a long-term standpoint; however, the work may not be critical at this time. Project addresses RPA 400 and partially address RPA 153.Comment:
Fundable, however, the ISRP continues to have some reservations about the no-till operations, and the need to develop a more analytical approach toward evaluating (rather the demonstrating) the potential benefits and costs of the program. Project sponsors should refer to the programmatic comments in the beginning of this report for additional ISRP comments on the need to examine agricultural economic aspects of no-till operations. A solid economic analysis of the larger no-till program would lead to insights and likely a real demonstration project that can be held up across the basin. The biological components of the project are sound, particularly as coupled with the WDFW biological monitoring.The level of involvement by all stakeholders in the subbasin in the planning and implementation of restoration is impressive and could serve as a model for many other locations in the basin. It is reminiscent of the stakeholder involvement and cooperation we observed in the Hood River and John Day subbasin tours.
The project sponsor's response contained some useful information, but was somewhat rambling, making it difficult to determine the main points occasionally. The response did not entirely allay the ISRP's concerns from the preliminary review concerning the role of active vs. passive stream restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to take in the restoration programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What happens when a big flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? This and many other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly engineered meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these initial steps may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future hydrologic events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly engineered channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated stream courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing or rip rapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in stream and river corridors.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProject will implement riparian buffer systems using cost share provided by USDA, WCC and SFRB, and private landowners. Buffers will restore and protect salmonid habitats, which should improve survival. Project also proposes to implement upland BMPs and improve instream habitat in watersheds that drain to the Snake River.
Comments
Project will implement RPA 153 if permanent or long term (> 15 years) easement is secured. Easement should be consistent with Oregon CREP. This project needs to be implemented consistent with limiting factors & problem locations identified in subbasin summaries & and eventually subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species. Proposed in stream restoration activities emphasize hard engineering as opposed to emphasizing natural channel formation -- course migration damped by riparian vegetation.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend project for implementation of RPA 153. We note that both streams have high CREP signup rates. BPA RPA RPM:
153
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153)
Comment:
Council Recommendation:Prioritized under the new project funding part of the decision tree, Council believes the emphasis the project places on passive restoration through the use of the CREP/CRP program warrants funding to implement RPA 153. As noted in the programmatic considerations, new work that emphasizes ESA needs is emphasized. Council would not recommend funding the active restoration component of the project (Construction and Implementation budget tasks 1c and d, task 2a and task 3b), prior to the development of an Asotin subbasin plan, as these elements do not correspond to ESA needs or fall within any of the other general considerations that would support new work. Bonneville commented that the project implemented RPA 153 and recommended funding the project.
Comment:
Fund to implement RPA 153.Comment:
Long tem direct seed program, 23.5 K might have be rescheduled, but with purchases, 12 K might have to be rescheduled. First year with program in this area. Project has moved one year forward. No FY02 implementation.Comment:
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: |
| $241,000 | $241,000 | $241,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website