FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28029
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 |
|---|---|
| 28029 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28029 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28029 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Lawyer Creek Habitat Targeting Steelhead and Chinook Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 28029 |
| Organization | Clearwater Economic Development Association (CEDA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Eric Phillips |
| Mailing address | 1626 6th Avenue, North Lewiston, ID 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087460015 / ephillips@lewiston.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Eric Phillips |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Restore physical and biological process in seven miles of anadromous and resident fish habitat in the Lawyer Creek watershed based on reach prioritization determined from a watershed assessment. |
| Target species | A-run steelhead (Snake River ESU, listed as threatened August, 1997), spring/summer chinook salmon (Snake River ESU, listed as threatened April, 1992), fall chinook salmon (Snake River ESU, listed as threatened April, 1992), westslope cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.2256 | -116.0117 | Mouth of Lawyer Creek at the Clearwater River |
| Upstream extent of restoration project area (7 miles upstream from mouth) | ||
| Mouth of Canyon (Breakland Reach) |
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 | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| Not Applicable |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9700601 | Clearwater River Subbasin Watershed Assessment | Lawyer Creek watershed assessment data will be made available to other agencies and evaluation committees |
| 9706000 | Clearwater River Subbasin Focus Watershed Program | Lawyer Creek project will coordinate with the Watershed Program to implement beneficial habitat restoration |
| 198335003 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery | Lawyer Creek channel-floodplain restoration will improve available habitat for spring and fall chinook raised in the hatchery and be released as "wild" fish |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Lawyer Creek Watershed Assessment to locate excessive sediment sources, degraded habitat, and to prioritize stream reaches to be restored. | a. Method 1-1: Channel morphology analysis | 2002 | $78,500 | Yes |
| b. Method 1-2: Fish habitat assessment | 2002 | $22,500 | Yes | |
| c. Method 1-3: Pfankuch Channel Stability Inventory | 2002 | $8,500 | Yes | |
| d. Method 1-4: U.S. Bureau of Land Management Riparian Inventory | 2002 | $15,500 | Yes | |
| e. Method 1-5: Sediment Loading Analysis | 2002 | $45,000 | Yes | |
| 2. Identify Priority Reaches | f. Method 2-1-6: Identify priority reaches from watershed assessment | 2002 | $1,200 | Yes |
| 3. Develop and Finalize Master Plan | g. Method 2-1-1: NEPA Requirements | 2002 | $41,000 | Yes |
| h. Method 2-1-2: Geomorphic Overview | 2002 | $2,000 | Yes | |
| i. Method 2-1-3: Bankfull and Flood Peak Analysis / Develop Hydraulic Geometry | 2002 | $15,250 | Yes | |
| j. Method 2-1-4: Develop Dimensionless Ratio Hydraulic Geometry | 2002 | $8,000 | Yes | |
| k. Method 2-1-5: Channel Hydraulic Analysis (pool, riffle, run habitat units) | 2002 | $2,400 | Yes | |
| l. Method 2-1-6: Planform Design | 2002 | $3,200 | Yes | |
| m. Method 2-1-7:Revegetation Plan | 2002 | $3,600 | Yes | |
| n. Method 2-1-8: Instream channel and bank stabilization structures | 2002 | $2,400 | Yes | |
| 4. Develop Final Design for Phase 1 project | o. Method 2-2-1: Sediment transport analysis/modeling | 2002 | $11,000 | Yes |
| p. Method 2-2-2: Water surface profiling and analysis | 2002 | $11,000 | Yes | |
| q. Method 2-2-3: Field verify final desing plans | 2002 - 2003 | $4,800 | Yes | |
| r. Method 2-2-4: Regulatory permitting | 2002 - 2003 | $10,000 | Yes | |
| s. Method 2-2-5: Construction scheduling and materials acquisition | 2002 - 2003 | $2,400 | Yes | |
| 5. Floodplain Surveys | t. Task 2-3: Surveys for final design and FEMA letter of map revision | 2002 | $20,000 | Yes |
| 6. Administration of Contracts/Project | u. Section g: Administration duties and tasks associated with contract/project. | 2002 | $34,500 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct Phase 2 project area survey and develop final channel design | 2003 | 2003 | $109,310 |
| 2. Conduct Phase 3 project area survey and develop final channel design | 2004 | 2004 | $112,051 |
| 3. Conduct Phase 4 project area survey and develop final channel design | 2005 | 2005 | $114,926 |
| 4. Conduct necessary tasks for potential Phase 5 | 2006 | 2006 | $118,947 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $109,310 | $112,051 | $114,926 | $118,947 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No construction scheduled for 2002 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement final channel design for Phase 1 project to improve channel function and fish and wildlife habitat in the mainstem (~1 mile) and tributary (~0.6 miles) | 2003 | 2003 | $580,000 |
| 2. Implement final channel design for Phase 2 project to improve channel function and fish and wildlife habitat in the mainstem (~1 mile) and tributary (~0.6 miles) | 2004 | 2004 | $609,000 |
| 3. Implement final channel design for Phase 3 project to improve channel function and fish and wildlife habitat in the mainstem (~1 mile) and tributary (~0.6 miles) | 2005 | 2005 | $639,450 |
| 4. Implement final channel design for Phase 4 project to improve channel function and fish and wildlife habitat in the mainstem (~1 mile) and tributary (~0.6 miles) | 2006 | 2006 | $671,400 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $580,000 | $609,000 | $639,450 | $671,400 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No operation / maintenance in 2002 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conduct maintenance and operations for Phase 1 of project. | 2003 | 2003 | $28,900 |
| Conduct maintenance and operations for Phase 2 of project. | 2004 | 2004 | $30,500 |
| Conduct maintenance and operations for Phase 3 of project. | 2005 | 2005 | $32,000 |
| Conduct maintenance and operations for Phase 4 of project. | 2006 | 2006 | $33,500 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $28,900 | $30,500 | $32,000 | $33,500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No Monitoring in 2002 | 2002 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Phase 1 project: Conduct pre- and post-project monitoring to identify habitat limiting factors and quantify effects of habitat enhancement work. | 2003 | 2006 | $36,000 |
| 2. Phase 2 project: Conduct pre- and post-project monitoring to identify habitat limiting factors and quantify effects of habitat enhancement work. | 2004 | 2006 | $46,800 |
| 3. Phase 3 project: Conduct pre- and post-project monitoring to identify habitat limiting factors and quantify effects of habitat enhancement work. | 2005 | 2006 | $60,840 |
| 4. Phase 4 project: Conduct pre- and post-project monitoring to identify habitat limiting factors and quantify effects of habitat enhancement work. | 2006 | 2006 | $79,100 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $36,000 | $46,800 | $6,084 | $79,100 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: .5 | $25,000 |
| Fringe | insurance and leave | $6,000 |
| Supplies | general office supplies and machine equipment | $1,000 |
| Travel | approximately 1 trip to site per week | $2,500 |
| NEPA | $41,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Water Consulting, Inc. | $179,750 |
| Subcontractor | NPT | $46,500 |
| Other | NPT & Water Consulting, Inc. combined tasks | $41,000 |
| $342,750 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $342,750 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $342,750 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEDA | Administrative | $10,000 | in-kind |
| City of Kamiah | Administrative | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho / Lewis Counties | Excavation/Labor. | $15,000 | in-kind |
| WCI | Professional Services | $15,000 | in-kind |
Other budget explanation
CEDA will conduct all administrative duties and task assignments for this project and will work with the City of Kamiah as local liaison. The other primary partners contributing in-kind services are Idaho and Lewis Counties. In-kind contributions have been taken into consideration when assembling budget request for FY2002 and estimates for FY 2003-2006.
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:
Response needed. This is a thorough, well-written proposal. It cites a watershed analysis, although watershed analysis is still being done in the Lawyer Creek drainage (see Project 28004). This proposal refers to 28004, though not by number. Why does it not refer to the Clearwater Focus Group?This project, like some others of the sort, is not justified. It may be that the lower 7 miles of Lawyer Creek is suboptimal habitat, and that the steelhead are declining, but these are not sufficient reasons to spend this money here, especially when BPA funds are limited and sooner or later someone will be held accountable for wise or unwise allocation of resources. The real need is for an overall analysis of all the tributaries, then, based on that, to do a triage, showing where to start on priority areas, and what areas to omit.
Regarding technical aspects, the proposal includes some sound approaches and up-to-date techniques, e.g., reference to naturally stable reaches of the same and nearby creeks for design of channel restoration, use of native plant materials collected locally, and liberal installation of LWD with recognition that it is an interim measure meant to tide the stream over until natural LWD replacement takes over. Some of the other techniques, especially those involving "hard" architecture and/or forms that seldom or never occur in nature, are of questionable value for fish and even could harm them. Questionable devices (and/or the ways they will be used) include J-hook vanes, rock weirs, rock cross vanes, and "upstream V-notch log weirs." The latter term seems to confuse what might be called an upstream log-V weir (a log weir in the plan-view shape of a V having its apex upstream) with a so-called V-notch weir, which could be either a streamflow-gauging device or a common habitat device: a straight, transverse log having a small notch to create a concentrated waterfall. Although both kinds of habitat device are built in creeks, neither mimics nature. Logs don't butt up against each other in upstream V-form when they fall naturally into streams, so the former device may do little for fish. Logs do lodge horizontally across streams in nature, and these often benefit fish tremendously, but nature puts no V-notch in them, and cutting a notch exposes more of the log's top to air and makes it rot faster. Maximal, cost-effective benefit for stream and riparian health and for fish and wildlife will derive from concentrating on LWD placed in forms that tend to occur naturally, and omitting most of the hard and artificial designs.
A major M&E program is planned in the project, and the proposal has much good information on it. However, the plan calls for monitoring to start "following project implementation," which would appear to mean after construction. A control reach will be included in the sampling, but just one control reach is not enough, and monitoring of treatment and control reaches should begin several years before any construction or other treatment starts. More detail on sampling design is needed in the proposal.
Reviewers did not see evidence of adequate knowledge regarding the measurement of fish abundance. The proposal's plan to conduct "two-pass depletion electrofishing" is inadvisable. A depletion method of estimation using only two passes would give unreliable results. At least three passes are needed in the depletion method. Alternatively, a two-pass mark-and-recapture method could be used. What type(s) of electrofishing gear will be used?
Comment:
This project partially addresses RPA 154. Comprehensive watershed assessment should be completed prior to implementation.Comment:
Fundable in part. The project is of low priority. It was not demonstrated in the review process that Lawyer Creek has potential for significant fish production. This project should complete a watershed assessment that identifies critical life stages and habitat of the anadromous salmonids involved that warrant restoration and protection—and specific geographic portions of the watershed where work needs to be done to accomplish this. Therefore, only the first two of the project's goals should be funded: (1) complete a watershed assessment and (2) draft a master plan for . . . watershed (this omits the proposal's specification of only the lower"7 miles of the watershed"). Also, the watershed assessment and resultant planning need to be tied in with development of a master plan for lower Clearwater steelhead and salmon spawning and rearing. The project implementation phases should be based on results of the watershed assessment and included (with an improved M&E section) in a proposal for the next funding cycle.In any future proposal, it would be advisable to discuss in more detail the methods for monitoring fish, e.g., justify the type of electrofishing gear and sizes of reaches to be inventoried. It would be better to estimate fish populations by mark-and-recapture rather than by a depletion method. Second opinions from bona fide fluvial geomorphologists experienced in matters of Pacific Northwest anadromous fishes should also be sought on plans for stream habitat works. Although the present proposal has definite positive aspects, it and the response to ISRP comments do not demonstrate familiarity with developments in knowledge about anadromous salmonid habitat.
To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, 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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit through completion of a watershed assessment. Potential increase in juvenile survival by habitat restoration, reconstruction of channel, addition of large woody debris, and creation of deep pool habitat.
Comments
This project will implement a watershed assessment effort, which would partially implement RPA 154, but the purpose of the assessment appears only to be to determine priority reaches for reconstruction and active restoration of the channel. Implementation of a project should not begin until a watershed plan is complete and should address basin-wide runoff and land use issues.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. This project should wait until Subbasin Planning is completed and the need for this project can be properly assessed. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
152, 154
Comment: