FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199901400

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
199901400 Narrative	Narrative
199901400 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
199901400 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
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	Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project
Proposal ID	199901400
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 / lewisscd@camasnet.com
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 Lower Little Canyon 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
46.47	-116.41	Mouth (Little Canyon Creek and Big Canyon Creek confluence near Peck, Idaho)
		Headwaters (headwaters of Little Canyon Creek where Holes and Long Hollow Creeks merge)

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
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	This project is a continuation of the original Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed project.
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. Review Project Plans	a. Lewis SCD initiate contract with selected consultant, review project for continued implementation efforts.	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. Review Project Plans	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 2. Project Narrative, Section 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
6. 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 monitiring 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
6. 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. Implementation Monitoring	a. Track BMP implementation and ersoion and sediment controls	ongoing	$3,000	Yes
	b. Survey fish density and riparian habitat quality index in Little Canyon Creek	2002	$30,000	Yes
	c. Communicate with cooperating agencies on coordinated monitoring efforts	ongoing	$2,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
5. Implementation Monitoring	2003	2004	$5,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004
$5,000	$5,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: Project Coordinator	$36,800
Supplies	BMP components (intake risers, underground outlets, erosion control fabric), general office supplies	$62,250
Travel	Calculated at $0.35/mile	$4,250
Indirect	Administrative overhead (8%)	$8,200
Subcontractor	Best Management Practice implementation ($90,000)	$90,000
Subcontractor	Monitoriong ($35,000)	$35,000
		$236,500

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$236,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$236,500
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. The response needs to list the BMPs, convince us that the BMP's are appropriate and tie to an assessment, prescription and restoration plan. Provide these plans. One of the BMPs appeared to be catchment ponds, but another project talked about removing ponds to avoid evaporation. Indicate how much has been done and how much needs to be done.

This is a thorough proposal for a watershed project of a type that should be encouraged and supported. The biological monitoring strategy (Task 5b) is not presented in enough detail. Under "Method," the plan (which is not a method) is to contract a survey of fish density and riparian habitat during the project's first summer (2002) and prepare a report for "peer review," comparing results to the findings of Kucera et al. (1983) so as to relate project accomplishments. The prospects for meaningful results from this are poor. The reliability of inferring a trend from two data points is low. Monitoring, using consistent methods, should be started at least a year or two before the project's first year, then continued for at least 6 years after project completion. The survey methods are not described.

See reviews for 199901500 and comments in 199706000 and 199608600 and respond in relation to this project.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

M4 - This project is one component of a watershed approach to habitat restoration and therefore there is significant cost share that was not reported in the proposal.

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

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Fundable but low priority. This proposal would continue to work with private landowners to implement agricultural and ranching best management practices in Little Canyon Creek, a tributary to Big Canyon Creek. Closely linked proposals are 199901500 for Big Canyon by the Nez Perce SCD and 199901600 by the Nez Perce Tribal Watershed program.

On the positive side, a planning document (Big Canyon Aquatic Assessment) has been done within the past few years by the Center for Environmental Education of Washington State University as part of project 199901600. Also, there is evidence of good interagency cooperation and enthusiastic, effective staff.

On the other hand, the aquatic assessment mentioned above (that was supplied to the ISRP in the response process) was never intended as a watershed assessment and does not function as such. It instead follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual that "uses a cookbook approach that walks the user through procedures that assess natural processes or features related to fish habitat and water quality. It was designed to be used by the average citizen interested in watersheds". While providing good insight into the geography and land-use patterns of the drainage, it is nearly all generic when discussing potential limiting factors and includes no fish or fish habitat data. In the view of the ISRP it does not even marginally function as a standard watershed assessment. However the ISRP felt that work on this project was justified (at low priority) by the planning done in preparation of the 1995 Big Canyon Creek Environmental Assessment by the Nez Perce County Soil and Water Conservation District, and by the fact the watershed appears to have reasonable fish production potential.

The monitoring still needs to be described in finer detail; see ISRP programmatic statement.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Potential increased survival through improved water quality as a result of implementing agricultural BMPs.

Comments
Only one category of BMPs mentioned (Riparian treatment practices : includes tree and shrub plantings, offsite-watering systems) is partially consistent with Action 153 and that represents only about 17% if the FY2002 budget. There is not sufficient detail on the types, specifications, and duration of BMPs that will be implemented to evaluate this project under Action 153.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A Conditional

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Recommend funding only after ISRP concerns about the level of detail in the monitoring plan are addressed. Monitoring plan should be maintained at current level. Any expansion should await development of the regional RM&E plan.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 13, 2002

Comment:

Fund only after ISRP concerns about the level of detail in the monitoring plan are addressed.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

On track.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$206,500	$206,500	$206,500

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website