FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 200207000
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 |
|---|---|
| 28059 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28059 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Mountain Snake: Clearwater Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Clearwater Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restoring anadromous fish habitat in the Lapwai Creek watershed. |
| Proposal ID | 200207000 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District (Nez Perce SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Lynn Rasmussen |
| Mailing address | 3113 East Main Lewiston, Idaho 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087469886 / Lynn.Rasmussen@id.usda.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Kyle Wilson, Chair, Nez Perce SWCD |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | The project will implement BMPs on agricultural lands to reduce sediment, nutrients, and stream temperature. In addition, the project will improve low summer flows by installing BMPs for water retention in the uplands. |
| Target species | Snake River Steelhead (ESU-threatened), Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon (ESU-threatened) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.32 | -116.58 | Lapwai Creek is a tributary to the Clearwater River. The confluence of Lapwai and the Clearwater River is located 11 miles East of Lewiston, Idaho. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
| Habitat RPA Action 151 |
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 |
|---|---|
| New Project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199608600 | Idaho Soil Conservation Commission Clearwater Focus Program | This project implements the goals and objectives of this program. |
| 19970600 | Nez Perce Tribal Focus Watershed Program | This project implements the goals and objectives of this program. |
| 83350 | Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery | Protection and restoration of fisheries habitat and water quality for fall chinook and coho satelite facility outplants currently under construction 0.8 miles upstream on Lapwai Creek from the confluence of the Clearwater River. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Initiate land owner contact and participation | A. Identify eligible landowners | .1 | $4,000 | |
| B. Develop a GIS based land ownership coverage. | .2 | $4,000 | Yes | |
| C. Conduct an intial public information meeting. | .1 | $2,500 | ||
| D. Accept applications for project participation | .1 | $4,792 | ||
| E. Develop outreach materials to assist in obtaining landowner participation, general education of habitat needs, and implementation of BMPs. | .05 | $3,500 | ||
| F. Develop informational materials to explain project goals and specific fisheries needs. | .2 | $7,240 | ||
| 2. Collect additional watershed planning information to proirotize BMP installation locations in tributaries | A. Prioritize stream reaches for treatment and develop site specific treatment alternatives. | 1.8 | $35,000 | |
| B. Complete GIS road layer information | $5,000 | Yes | ||
| C. Develop GIS layer for known structure and project work. | $5,000 | Yes | ||
| D. Inventory and prioritize for treatment noxious weed locations within the watershed | $5,000 | Yes | ||
| 3. Complete BMP plans and ensure regulatory compliance. | A. Select project applications for site evaluations and plan development. | .02 | $2,000 | |
| B. Complete initial site reviews and collect resource data. | .08 | $5,328 | ||
| C. Develop conservation plans, which identify site specific BMPs to address fish habitat needs. | .25 | $12,320 | ||
| D. Design identified BMPs | .3 | $12,320 | ||
| E. NEPA, SHIPO, and other regulatory compliance. | .05 | $2,080 | ||
| 7. Provide public education and technology transfer in order to increase public awareness of resource problems and solutions. | A. Conduct two noxious weed educational workshops for landowners | $5,000 | Yes | |
| B. Conduct a water quality and fisheries habitat workshop. | $3,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Initiate landowner contact and participation | 3 | 6 | $2,000 |
| 2. Collect additional watershed planning information to prioritize BMP installation locations in Lapwai Creek tributaries. | 3 | 3 | $5,000 |
| 3. Complete BMP plans and ensure regulatory compliance | 3 | 6 | $32,048 |
| 7. Provide public education and technology transfer | 3 | 6 | $5,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $44,048 | $39,048 | $39,048 | $39,048 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4. Supervise and inspect BMP installation | A. Revise the existing contractor list and prepare contractor agreements. | .02 | $1,000 | |
| B. Install and inspect BMPs | .2 | $15,320 | ||
| B. Install and inspect BMPs - contractor | $200,000 | Yes | ||
| C. Implement noxious weed control BMPs. | $5,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4. Supervise and inspect BMP installation | 3 | 6 | $220,320 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $220,320 | $220,320 | $220,320 | $220,320 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7. Provide public education and technology transfer in order to increase the public awareness of resource problems and solutions. | C. Publish 2 newsletters per year. | .06 | $3,000 | |
| C. Publish 2 newsletter per year - publication cost | $1,500 | Yes | ||
| E. Meet one-on-one with landowners in the watershed. | .2 | $9,000 | ||
| 5. Complete interagency coordination meeting | B. Develop and maintain a web-based information sharing process for Lapwai Watershed activities. | $5,000 | Yes | |
| 8. Complete BMP effectiveness on selected BMPs | A. Collect site specific BMP effectiveness data relating to sediment reduction, stream temperature reduction, riparian restoration, erosion control, and stream morphology changes as appropriate. | .1 | $7,160 | |
| 9. Monitor stream temperature within the Lapwai Creek watershed. | A. Collect stream temperature data | .06 | $3,000 | |
| B. Compile data and distribute report. | .06 | $4,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5. Complete interagency coordination | 3 | 6 | $5,000 |
| 7. Provide public education and technology transfer in order to increase the public awareness of resource problems and solutions | 3 | 6 | $13,500 |
| 8. Complete BMP effecteness on selected BMPs. | 3 | 6 | $7,160 |
| 10. Determine if stream temperatures are limiting factors for fish habitat. | 3 | 6 | $7,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $32,660 | $32,660 | $32,660 | $32,660 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2.1 | $70,000 |
| Fringe | 34% | $23,800 |
| Supplies | $5,000 | |
| Travel | $5,000 | |
| Indirect | 10% | $19,760 |
| Capital | $10,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $238,500 | |
| $372,060 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $372,060 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $372,060 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| NRCS (PL566, WHIP, EQIP program) | Cost-share on agricultural BMPs | $50,000 | cash |
| NRCS | coordination, technical assistance, engineering oversight | $40,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | coordination, technical assistance | $20,000 | in-kind |
| Nez Perce Tribe | coordination, technical assistance | $20,000 | in-kind |
| Lewiston High School | water quality monitoring | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts | water quality monitoring | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Nez Perce County | road inventory assistance | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Soil Conservation Commission | cost-sharing on livestock waste systems | $20,000 | cash |
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. A thorough but lengthy proposal was presented, and the presentation was in conjunction with 199901700. The problem of temperatures, flows, and sedimentation was well defined, and several solutions were recommended, including BMPs, culvert surveys (why was this not part of the watershed assessment?), bridge repair, fencing, and the work includes an impressive component of public education (meetings, tours, newsletters). Questions at the presentation revealed that a thorough watershed assessment within established protocols has not been completed. This must be a priority before progressing further. See M&E comments under 28004 (Lawyer Creek) which also apply here. In addition, indicate in the response the extent of BMPs implementation planned and completed, and what percentage of the required work this represents, particularly in relation to reductions in negative attributes that will benefit fish. Then indicate how this will be monitored and evaluated, and the level of monitoring (i.e., as positive trends in physical and biological variables, or through more detailed effectiveness evaluation in a paired design). See 199706000 and 199608600. Coordination among participants appeared high, a function of the level of motivation evident from the proposal, the tour, and the presentation. The work and its review could benefit from a clearer statement of priorities and a list of tasks by order of importance and timing of implementation.The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.
Comment:
This project compliments the activities proposed in project number 199901700. This project focuses on the water quality affects by private landowners.Comment:
Fundable. This is a high priority tributary for rehabilitation efforts because of production potential. Lapwai Creek system has a great potential for increasing anadromous smolt production if habitat is restored; this new project should help accelerate progress toward that goal. An adequate watershed assessment has been completed for the watershed (see comments for proposal 199901700). Proceed first with the implementation of those BMPs that are in closest proximity to stream-courses and will have the most effective and direct instream or riparian benefits. There should be a stronger indication of comprehension and summary of the M&E task (e.g., response variables, methods) then what was indicated. Manuals of standard procedures for all phases of watershed assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, and evaluation are required here and throughout.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 ESUBenefits are indirect. Largely a planning exercise. Improvement in water quality through implementation of agricultural BMPs. Likely increase in survival if habitat planning and restoration is successful although there is insufficient specificity in the proposal to determine where project will be implemented and what the specifics will be and whether land owner interest is present.
Comments
There is no specific RPA that addresses water quality projects by themselves. This project does not appear to be in the Middle Fork of the Clearwater (a priority subbasin). This project may not be effective because a major portion of the flow in this subbasin is diverted. Once the flow issues have been addressed, BMPs on agricultural lands would be a good investment.
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:
154
Comment:
Council recommendation: These are three [28047, 28048, 28059] (of the six total) new anadromous fish focused habitat restoration and protection proposals that the Council recommends for funding in the Clearwater basin in this cycle. Each of them was rated as fully "fundable" by the ISRP and high priority by CBFWA. The regional prioritization group for the Mountain Snake province recommends them as priorities. NMFS has noted that all three correspond to RPA 154 in the Biological Opinion (the sponsors suggest that additional RPAs -- 149 and 152 -- are addressed as well). Given the ISRP support, correspondence to a BiOp RPA, and priority given by the local managers and interests, the Council's general funding principles support this new work. The Council recognizes that portions of these projects are for additional watershed assessment type activities, which, as a general rule, the Council is not expanding prior to subbasin planning (the amount dedicated to such work varies for each of the three projects). However, this assessment work builds upon substantial prior assessment work that has been completed within the Clearwater subbasin, and it targets areas that have been deemed priorities for additional assessment in those past subbasin-wide efforts. This prioritization of additional assessment work is precisely what is anticipated to occur in most areas of the Columbia basin during subbasin planning. Since this prioritization has already been largely accomplished in the Clearwater prior to subbasin planning, the Council does not believe that these focused assessment activities within these projects need to wait for subbasin planning.The primary issue comes from Bonneville's comments. Bonneville's comments note that the two Nez Perce projects should be evaluated relative to the draft proposed interim policy for funding habitat activities on federally owned land. As noted in the programmatic issues, the Council does not believe that the draft interim policy, as currently written, should be determinative of the Council recommendation in this funding cycle. However, the Council understands the major themes of the draft interim policy to focus on federal cost-share and the relationship to other Bonneville investments, and these two projects address those elements.
For project 28047 (Red River) the sponsor reports a proposed FY 02 cost-share of $365,000 to match with its FY 02 request for $95,000 of Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate cost-share of 79% for this project in FY 02. The sponsors have provided detailed information of past Bonneville investments in this project area extensive, showing that those investments have spanned several years, varied strategies (including habitat restoration and protection, research, and artificial production initiatives), and total in the millions of dollars.
For project 28048 (Crooked Fork Creek to Colt Killed Area) the sponsor reports a proposed FY 02 cost-share of $95,000 to match with its FY 02 request for $174,482 of Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate cost-share of 35% in FY 02. The sponsors have provided detailed information of past Bonneville investments in this project area extensive, showing that those investments have spanned several years, varied strategies (including both habitat restoration and protection and artificial production initiatives), and total in the millions of dollars.
For project 28059 (Lapwai Creek Watershed) the sponsor reports a proposed FY 02 cost-share of $165,000 to match with its FY 02 request for $ 372,060 of Bonneville funds. This amounts to an approximate cost-share of 31%. It should also be noted that Lapwai Creek is one of the rearing and acclimation sites for NPTH.
Comment:
Fund in coordination with NPPC's subbasin planning project to implement RPA 154.Comment:
Contract objectives: Obj 6, task C. Obj 4, Task B, Obj 2, task A (coordinated with NPT-199901700). Work to be rescheduled into 2004 - subcontract, permits, NMFS permits and comments due late in fiscal year. Would need to be implemented in 2004. Planting work needs to be timed to specific season. Follow up from sponsor (8/25/03) sponsor proposes to reschedule $42,750 for water and sediment control structure, reschedule $20,000 for the sediment basin, reschedule $28,032 for waste management system, and reschedule $8,021 for channel vegetation.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: |
| $292,028 | $292,028 | $292,028 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website