FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 199401807: Improve Habitat For Fall Chinook, Steelhead in the Lower Snake and Tucannon Subbasins

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
Finalized Duane Bartels

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199401807
Proposal Name: Improve Habitat For Fall Chinook, Steelhead in the Lower Snake and Tucannon Subbasins
BPA Project Manager: Sarah Branum
Agency, Institution or Organization: Pomeroy County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Short Description: To obtain funding to continue with the districts effort to reduce soil erosion on the uplands and along the streams of Garfield County to improve water quality and fish habitat.
Information Transfer: This information will be transfered onto the web to be used by those reviewing this proposal and others that are interested in the activities and impacts of those activities. Data will also be available in status and yearly reports.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Duane Bartels Pomeroy Conservation District P.O. Box 468
Pomeroy WA 99347
Ph: 509.843.1998
Fax: 509.843.1168
Email: duanebar@pomeroy-wa.com
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Duane Bartels Pomeroy Conservation District P.O. Box 468
Pomeroy WA 99347
Ph: 509.843.1998
Fax: 509.843.1168
Email: duanebar@pomeroy-wa.com
Administrative Contact
Contract Manager
Project Lead
Technical Contact

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Tucannon ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
N46 W117 Alpowa Creek Alpowa Creek Watershed Garfield, Washington Snake Lower Yes
N46 W117 Deadman Creek Deadman Creek Watershed Garfield, Washington Snake Lower Yes
N46 W117 Meadow Creek Meadow Creek Watershed Garfield, Washington Snake Lower Yes
N46 W117 Pataha Creek Pataha Watershed Garfield, Washington Tucannon Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Steelhead Snake River ESU
Chinook Snake River Fall ESU

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 No-till 1,329 ac., Direct Seed 964 ac.
2004 No-till 182 ac., Grassed WW 2,800 ft., Direct Seed 766 ac.
2003 No-till 753 ac., Direct Seeding 432 ac.
2002 No-till 335 ac.,Critical Area Seeding 29 ac., Sed. Basins 1,184 cyds., Pipeline 5,800 ft., trees 700, Direct seeding 986 ac.
2001 No-till 1,335 ac.,Critical area 32 ac., Sed. basin 6,615 cyd., grassed WW 1,450 ft., pasture plant 20 ac., Direct Seeding 1,516 ac.
2000 Subsoil 1,073 ac.,No-till 1,700 ac.,2 pass seeding 1,848 ac., Sed. basin 11,335 cyds.,Fencing 20,160 ft., grass rotation 42 ac., Grassed WW 2,579 ft., streambank protection 100 ft.,trees 300, Direct seeding 218 ac.
1999 Subsoil 1,827 ac., no-till 1,961 ac.,2 pass seeding 2,113 ac.,Sed. basin 37,052 cyds., buffers 22 ac., grass in rotation 207 ac., Grass WW 854 ft., Pipeline 24,716 ft., terraces 18,268 ft.
1998 Subsoil 1,724 ac., No-till 977 ac., Sed. basin 10,747 cyd., Fencing 18,160 ft. Fish stream 400 ft.,Grass WW 15,451 ft., pipeline 6,949 ft., streambank 3,550 ft., terraces 76,569 ft., trees planted 15,600, strips 307 ac. buffers 41.5 acres, divides 123 ac.
1997 Subsoiling 949 ac.,No-till 1,648 ac.,Critical Area Seeding 15.4 ac.,Sed. Basin 5,982 cyd.,Buffer 20.5 ac.,Fish Stream Improv. 600 ft.,trees 5,000 Grass WW 7,683 ft.,Streambank 2,665 ft.,strips 576 ac.,terrace 103,523 ft Off site H20 4
1996 Salmon in Class Room,No-till seeding 1,247 ac.,Critical Area seeding 2.4 ac.,Sediment Basins 3,128 cyd.,Grassed WW 7,596 ft.,Terraces 27,679 ft.,Upland buffer 1.5 ac.,Divided slope 40 ac.,Streambank 125 ft.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
Other: IAC SRFB 04-1568R Garfield County Irrigation Screening Program Program to CS the installation of NOAA approved fish screens on all surface water withdrawl irrigation systems.
Other: Conservation Commission 06-47-CR-01 CREP program program that focuses directly on riparian restoration efforts to improve salmon habitat and water quality
Other: Conservation Commisssion 06-47-IM-01 Implementation Grant Current bi-annual grant to address a limited number of upland, rangeland, and riparian problems.
Other: Conservation Commission 06-47-LV-01 Livestock Influenced Water Quality program directly related to livestock impacts from AFO/CAFO on water quality.
BPA 199708800 Pataha Cr Stream Restoration Older contract addressing direct riparian restoration efforts. Tree planting, bank stabilization, fencing.
Other: Department of Ecology C0300165 Metering Interagency Agreement C0300165 CS program to install water use meters on all surface withdrawl irrigation systems in the county
Other: Department of Ecology G0300114 Garfield County Riparian Restoration Project project to assist through CS the management of livestock operations to improve water quality
Other: Department of Ecology G0400312 Deadman Creek Riparian Protection involved fencing and off site water development on 2 miles of riparian area along Deadman Creek.
Other: Department of Ecology GO500115 Garfield County Riparian Restoration Project #2 Continuation of grant G0300114.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Continue Riparian Recovery Objective PM4.1 Continue riparian recovery (increasing riparian complexity, width, and re-establishment) to achieve at least 75% riparian function Tucannon Strategy PM4.1.1 Improve the extent, structure, and function of riparian buffers through vegetation planting (native species unless otherwise required), managed grazing, selective livestock fencing, and similar practices, including tributaries. 144
Continue Riparian Recovery Objective PM4.1 Continue riparian recovery (increasing riparian complexity, width, and re-establishment) to achieve at least 75% riparian function Tucannon Strategy PM4.1.4-Increase understanding of the importance of riparian habitat through education and outreach programs for both the general public and road maintenance personnel 144
Continue Riparian Recovery Objective PM4.1 Continue riparian recovery (increasing riparian complexity, width, and re-establishment) to achieve at least 75% riparian function Tucannon Strategy PM4.1.5-Protect riparian vegetation through promotion of livestock BMPs such as alternative grazing rotations and the installation of alternative forms of water for livestock. 144
Continue Riparian Recovery Objective PM4.1 Continue riparian recovery (increasing riparian complexity, width, and re-establishment) to achieve at least 75% riparian function Tucannon Strategy PM4.1.11-Where appropriate and feasble, manage beaver populations (increase, decrease, maintain) to enhance riparian areas, and educate the public regarding benefits of beaver. 144
Continue Riparian Recovery Objective PM4.1 Continue riparian recovery (increasing riparian complexity, width, and re-establishment) to achieve at least 75% riparian function Tucannon Strategy PM4.4.12-Develop and implement strategy for monitoring improvements in riparian function 144
Continue Riparian Recovery Objective PM4.1 Continue riparian recovery (increasing riparian complexity, width, and re-establishment) to achieve at least 75% riparian function Tucannon Strategy PM4.1.14-Increase landowner participation in federal, state, tribal, and local programs that enhance watershed conditions (e.g. CRP, CREP, Wetlands Reserve Program, EQIP, Landowner Incentive Program, Partners for Fish & Wildlife, Conservation S 144
Continue Riparian Recovery Objective PM4.1 Continue riparian recovery (increasing riparian complexity, width, and re-establishment) to achieve at least 75% riparian function Tucannon Strategy PM4.1.15-Seek additional funding sources consistent with current CRP and CREP guidelines to increase individual landowner enrollment in programs that achieve similar goals 144
Facilitate Riparian Recovery Objective DC2.1- Facilitate riparian recovery in heavily degraded areas to achieve >50% riparian function from Ping- Lynn and in the SF Deadman, and >75% from Lynn-forks. Lower Snake See Strategy See AC1.1.12, AC1.1.14, AC1.1.15, AC1.1.16, AC2.1.4, AC2.1.6, AC2.1.12, AC2.1.13 included in Relevant Strategies above 122
Increase large woody debris in Ping & SF Deadman Objective DC4.1-Reach >0.33 pieces of large wood per channel width. Lower Snake See Strategy AC4.1.7- Improve the extent, structure, and function of riparian buffers through vegetation planting (native species unless otherwise required), managed grazing, selective livestock fencing, and similar practices. 123
Increase large woody debris in Ping and SF Deadman Objective DC4.1-Reach >.33 pieces of large wood per channel width Lower Snake Strategy AC4.1.8, AC4.1.9, AC4.1.10 See Strategy AC1.1.12, AC1.1.13, AC1.1.14 in Relevent Strategies 123
Increase summer flows in Deadman Creek Objective DC6.1-Show upward trend in summer flows Lower Snake See Strategy AC7.1.4-Improve watershed function, including increased upland water infiltration, through road decommissioning, reduced soil compaction, direct seeding activities, increasing native vegetation cover, CRP, etc 124
Increase summer flows in Pataha Creek Objective PM6.1-Increase flows were possible Tucannon Strategy PM6.1.2-Minimize surface water withdrawals through implementation of irrigation efficiencies, quantify legal withdrawls, identify and eliminate illegal withdrawls. 148
Increase summer flows in Pataha Creek Objective PM6.1-Increase flows were possible Tucannon Strategy PM6.1.6-Develop and implement strategy for monitoring improvements in streamflow 148
Lower temperature of Pataha Creek Objective PM5.1-Objectives would be the same as those used in Deadman and Alpowa Creeks Tucannon See Strategies's used in Deadman and Alpowa 146
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks Objective DC7.1- Achieve the three following standards: 1. All days less than 25C (77F); 2. Less than 4 nonconsecutive days with warmest day 22-25C (72-77F); and 3. Less than 12 days greater than 16C (61F) annually, where appropriate.and show progress toward meeting Washington State temperature standards and TMDL goals. Lower Snake Strategy DC7.1.4-Protect riparian vegetation through promotion of livestock BMPs such as alternative grazing rotations and the installation of alternative forms of water for livestock. 125
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks Objective DC7.1- Achieve the three following standards: 1. All days less than 25C (77F); 2. Less than 4 nonconsecutive days with warmest day 22-25C (72-77F); and 3. Less than 12 days greater than 16C (61F) annually, where appropriate.and show progress toward meeting Washington State temperature standards and TMDL goals. Lower Snake Strategy DC7.1.6-Improve upland water infiltration through reduced soil compaction, direct seeding activities, increasing native vegetation cover, CRP participation, etc. 125
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks Objective DC7.1- Achieve the three following standards: 1. All days less than 25C (77F); 2. Less than 4 nonconsecutive days with warmest day 22-25C (72-77F); and 3. Less than 12 days greater than 16C (61F) annually, where appropriate.and show progress toward meeting Washington State temperature standards and TMDL goals. Lower Snake Strategy DC7.1.12- Seek funding sources to develop programs consistent with the goals of CRP 125
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks Objective DC7.1- Achieve the three following standards: 1. All days less than 25C (77F); 2. Less than 4 nonconsecutive days with warmest day 22-25C (72-77F); and 3. Less than 12 days greater than 16C (61F) annually, where appropriate.and show progress toward meeting Washington State temperature standards and TMDL goals. Lower Snake Strategy DC7.1.13-Develop and implement strategy for monitoring improvements in summer water temperatures. 125
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Objective PM1.1- Reduce embeddedness within the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity. Current estimate: up to 37% Tucannon Strategy PM1.1.4-Reduce sediment inputs through implementation of additional forestry, agricultural, urban, stormwater and other BMPs. 140
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Objective PM1.1- Reduce embeddedness within the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity. Current estimate: up to 37% Tucannon Strategy PM1.1.5-Restore perennial vegetation in upland cultivated and non-cultivated areas with native species and reforestation. 140
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Objective PM1.1- Reduce embeddedness within the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity. Tucannon Strategy PM1.1.10-Improve watershed conditions (e.g. upland water infiltration) through road obliteration, reduced soil compaction, direct seeding activities, increasing native vegetation cover, etc. 140
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Objective PM1.1- Reduce embeddedness within the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity. Tucannon Strategy PM1.1.17- Implement the most economical and effective treatment methods to control noxious weeds, including the encouragement of biological control methods where feasible and appropriate. 141
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Objective PM1.1- Reduce embeddedness within the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity. Tucannon Strategy PM1.1.19- Increase landowner participation in federal, state, tribal, and local programs that enhance watershed conditions (e.g. CRP, CREP, Wetlands Reserve Program, EQIP, Landowner Incentive Program, Partners for Fish & Wildlife, Conservation S 141
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Objective PM1.1- Reduce embeddedness within the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity. Tucannon Strategy PM1.1.3-Continue development and implementation of watershed scale efforts (e.g. TMDLs) to remedy identified water quality factors. 140
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Objective PM1.1- Reduce embeddedness within the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity. Tucannon Strategy PM1.1.2 Decrease sediment delivery from upland practices through expanded use of conservation tillage, sedment basins, mowing of road shoulders in place of herbicide use, road paving, implementation of managed grazing, limited grazing, other BMP 140
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon and Patah Objective PM1.1-Reduce embeddedness with the area to 20%. This will also stimulate a corresponding decrease in percent fines and turbidity Tucannon Stategy PM1.1.15-Develop and implement strategy for monitoring improvements in embeddedness. 140
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC 1.1.2-Decrease sediment delivery from upland practices through expanded use of conservation tillage, sediment basins, mowing of road shoulders in in place of herbicide use, vegetative buffers on road shoulders, and other practices. 115
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategies for Objective AC.1.1.7 Note- Strategies are not prioritized and will be implemented based upon opportunities available Strategy AC1.1.7- Continue development and implementation of watershed scale efforts to decrease sediment inputs. 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping Forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC1.1.4 Implement the most economical and effective treatment methods to control noxious weeds(including False Indigo), including the encouragement of biological control methods where feasible and appropriate 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness with the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC1.1.7- Continue development and implementation of watershed scale efforts to decrease sediment inputs. 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC1.1.8- Reduce sediment inputs through implementation of upland forestry and agricultural BMPs, including activities such as sediment basins on intermittent streams, and continue maintenance of current sediment basins. 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake Strategy AC1.1.12-Increase landowner participation in federal, state, tribal, and local programs that enhance watershed health (e.g., CRP, CREP, Wetlands Reserve Program, EQIP, Partners for Fish & Wildlife, WDFW Landowner Incentive Program, Conservation 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness with the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake Strategy AC1.1.13-Seek additional funding sources consistent with current CRP and CREP guidelines to increase individual landowner enrollment in programs that achieve similar goals, including prioritization of landowners already reaching limitation 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC1.1.14-Seek funding sources to develop programs consistent with the goals of CRP, EQIP, and CREP in those areas where such programs are not available. 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1_Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC1.1.15-Develop off-stream livestock watering facilities wherever feasible, or access to a water gap if necessary. 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC1.1.16-Prior to implementation of off-stream watering projects, clarify how to protect water rights when livestock watering is moved off-stream 122
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman Objective DC1.1-Reduce embeddedness within the area to <40% from Ping-forks and <25% in SF Deadman Lower Snake See Strategy AC1.1.9-Develop and implement strategy for monitoring improvements in embeddedness. 122

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation as requested review old and produce new Environmental Compliance Documentation as requested by BPA. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $600
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Develop Alternative Water Source Cost-share for alternative watering sources 75% cost-share for eligible expenses for development of offsite watering locations. Practices would include but not limited to wells, storage tanks, troughs, pipeline, plumbing, water gaps, spring developments. Specific locations are unknown and will be determined by voluntary enrollment of landowners/operators. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $27,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Continue Riparian Recovery
Facilitate Riparian Recovery
Increase summer flows in Deadman Creek
Increase summer flows in Pataha Creek
Lower temperature of Pataha Creek
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman
No Metrics for this Work Element

Install Fence Cost-share for fence installations 75% cost-share, not to exceed $1.88/foot for fencing of riparian areas and cross-fencing for better distribution of livestock. Specific locations and acreages are unknown and will be determined by voluntary enrollment of landowners/operators. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $28,200
Biological Objectives Metrics
Continue Riparian Recovery
Facilitate Riparian Recovery
Increase large woody debris in Ping & SF Deadman
Increase summer flows in Deadman Creek
Increase summer flows in Pataha Creek
Lower temperature of Pataha Creek
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman
No Metrics for this Work Element

Plant Vegetation Cost-share for vegetation plantings Plant trees and grass in riparian area 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $15,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Continue Riparian Recovery
Facilitate Riparian Recovery
Increase large woody debris in Ping & SF Deadman
Increase summer flows in Deadman Creek
Increase summer flows in Pataha Creek
Lower temperature of Pataha Creek
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman
* # of acres of planted: 30

Practice No-till and Conservation Tillage Systems Cost-share for no-till and direct seed planting practices Provide approx. 50% cost-share ($20 per acre)to landowners/operators wanting to implement no-till and direct seed planting practices on acres not being subsidized by other cost share programs (Ex. EQIP, CSP). Cost share is available to landowners/operators by policy set by board of supervisors. Specific locations and acreages are unknown and will be determined by voluntary enrollment of landowners/operators that fall into area designated as higher priority by district board. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $180,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase summer flows in Deadman Creek
Increase summer flows in Pataha Creek
Lower temperature of Pataha Creek
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman
No Metrics for this Work Element

Remove vegetation Cost Share to control noxious weeds on rangeland Cost Share up to $100 per acre per year for the cost of controlling noxious weeds on rangeland and the seeding of these acres to approved grasses for erosion control and forage for livestock and wildlife. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $210,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman
* # of acres treated: 2100

Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control Cost-share for upland erosion and sedimentation control Implement upland conservation practices such as but not limited to strips, terraces, sediment basins, and grass waterways to reduce erosion from cropland. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $3,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Lower temperature of Pataha Creek
Lower temperatures Deadman,Meadow,Alpowa Creeks
Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha
Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman
* # of acres treated: 300

Manage and Administer Projects Manage Project Activities include invoicing, SOW preparation, coordination with other agencies on salmon habitat enhancement and restoration; seek additional funding and administer cost-share funds for upland erosion and sediment control, no-till and direct seeding, fencing, vegetation plantings, offsite water development practices, and other practices; see that all appropriate permits that are required for projects are obtained by project contractor or producer; coordination with WSU on water quality monitoring data; coordination of activities to keep people involved and show the accomplishments of projects; and general management of all aspects of district program implementation. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $128,682
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Produce and submit annual report to BPA produce and submit annual report of all expenses and practices implemented during each fiscal year 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $1,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Status Report Produce and submit status reports to BPA prepare and submit status reports to BPA as required 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $600
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect water quality data from WSU and local lab collect and analyze water quality samples from two ISCO sampling sites located at Starbuck and Columbia to determine trend in effectiveness of upland, rangeland, and riparian practices implemented over the years. Also collect water/air temperatures from 10 sites on streams located in Garfield County. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $6,654
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel two FTE @25% $18,574 $19,132 $19,706
Fringe Benefits two FTE @25% $11,128 $11,462 $11,805
Supplies Goods and Services $13,025 $13,025 $13,025
Other BMP CS, monitoring $156,618 $156,618 $156,618
Totals $199,345 $200,237 $201,154

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$600,736
Total Work Element budget$600,736

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
Conservation Commission BMP CS $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 Cash Under Development
CREP BMP CS and Maint. $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Cash Confirmed
DOE BMP CS $121,000 $121,000 $121,000 Cash Confirmed
Private Landowners Landowner share of BMP's implemented $92,000 $92,000 $92,000 Cash Confirmed
Private Landowners Landowner share of BMP's implemented under Conservation Commission Grant $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 Cash Under Development
Totals $343,000 $343,000 $343,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$195,000 $185,000 This program will continue at its present rate for at least 10 to 15 years.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
There are no maintenance or future operation costs to BPA associated with any of these BMP's or projects that are implemented with this funding.
 
Termination Date Comments
2020 Funding needed for the F&W Program in Garfield County should taper down over the coming years and be completed by 2020. This will be attributed to future farm programs that are directed to environmental improvement such as the new Conservation Security Program (CSP). The overall farm economy will also determine what farmers and ranchers can do to continue with the implementation of practices to improve our overall environment.
 
Final Deliverables
Final deliverables would be that the streams in Garfield County meet Washington State standards for water quality and that water quantity and riparian health are adequate to sustain a healthy population of fish and wildlife to our area.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$64,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$65,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$64,000
Total NPCC Rec
$193,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments: Move to Lower Snake in database. ISRP fundable qualified: programmatic habitat m&e issue, see decision memo discussion. Project to be implemented with reduced scope.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$64,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$65,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$64,000
Total NPCC Rec
$193,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: Move to Lower Snake in database. ISRP fundable qualified: programmatic habitat m&e issue, see decision memo discussion.

Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
Comments: The response did not satisfy the ISRP questions and there remains uncertainty about the biological benefits of the work completed and planned. The dilemma is that the work very likely does have positive benefits if carried to completion; i.e., no-till is widely practiced. Evidence to that effect was not provided. The literature on no-till has shown benefits to habitat issues, but benefits need to be shown to fish for this project. This after all is being funded as a fish benefit project. To assume this is tied to spawning in the mainstem is a bit of a leap.

This project, however, isn't the likely project to do this monitoring (it may be the project to pay for the monitoring), but some project in the basin needs to do this analysis of data from an existing project. The Forest Service needs to be brought in. If the project sponsors summarized all the data on no-till from projects elsewhere, described successes and failures, and added a piece on fish benefits that could make a justified project and provide a basis for a good brochure on the benefits of no-till.

Since the sponsor reports that bio-engineered projects they have completed were found to be economically infeasible and not a good habitat benefit for steelhead, they should publish these results to provide guidance for other similar projects.

Sponsor reported that many acres are now in CREP and that sediment, water temperature, habitat diversity are all improving, but no data are provided. Benefits to salmon and steelhead spawning are assumed to be improving. Improved spawning condition is the reason for the project, so there should be some indication of its success. They should now be in a position to show skeptics that they are producing the expected benefits. Absent an evaluation, the initial hypothesis that no-till in the Pataha Basin would reduce sediment yield in important spawning areas and help overcome limits on survival caused by embedded spawning grounds remains untested.

Another primary question is, "At what point in time can it be concluded that encouragement of farmers by means of such demonstration projects will no longer be necessary?" Some sort of periodic survey would be useful.

The qualification associated with the ISRP recommendation is that the sponsors secure provisions for monitoring of biological responses.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: This proposal will receive a fundable recommendation only if the sponsors include better justification of the biological benefits of converting farmland production to no-till and a rigorous economic analysis.

The project has been approved and continued for more than 10 years. It is an effort to reduce the embeddedness, increase summer flows, reduce stream temperatures, facilitate riparian recovery, and increase large woody debris in streams of the basin by encouraging/facilitating no-till agriculture, grazing management, and planting stream-side vegetation. Since the goal is to improve habitat for fall chinook salmon and steelhead, it is assumed that these actions will facilitate attainment of the goal. Goals, or expected contribution to subbasin goals, for fish abundance are not specified. It is not an adaptive management project. Past results are stated in terms of acres in no-till and number of trees planted. No results are presented to show that the project has reduced embeddedness, increased summer flows, reduced temperatures, increased large woody debris, or increased fish numbers providing no basis to assess whether or not the project should be continued.

Project elements other than no-till (bio-engineering elements such as the placement of large woody debris) need to be guided by requirements for restoring "normal" channel dynamics. An assessment of a competent fluvial geomorphologist is needed to identify those requirements and to help develop priority for appropriate proposals.

Projects 199401806 and 1807 should be related (#199401806 should be obtaining data useful in evaluating the present project, and useful in designing strategies for in-stream or riparian habitat improvement). Is it not possible to conduct a simple adaptive management experiment with treatment and controls and a few physical (sediment) and biological response variables (e.g., invertebrates or parr density) at a few sites? There appears to be a disconnect between ISRP reviews, subbasin plans, M&E, and these long-standing projects.

The approach seems intuitively to have merit in that it would be expected to reduce sediment loads in streams, thereby improving habitat for fish. In this respect it has an advantage over a closely related proposal, #199401806 Tucannon Stream and Riparian Protection, Enhancement, and Restoration, where the latter proposes to provide in-stream structures to deal with the same problem (embeddedness of substrate, etc.). Those instream structures are likely to be ineffective unless measures are taken to reduce effects of erosion of the surrounding land.

The ISRP requests responses to the following items:

1. The ISRP has previously requested information to assess biological benefits of converting farmland production to no-till and a rigorous economic analysis. Has such an analysis been completed?

2. Discuss the basis for your conclusions that the percentage of acres likely to be in no-till for the long term will be sufficient to cause significant reduction in fine sediments in the associated channels and spawning gravels?

3. What is the trend in number of acres under no-till (acres per year) since the project began?

4. What has been the performance of, and conclusions regarding, bio-engineered projects previously completed under this project? These are potentially important findings and detailed reports would be helpful.

5. This project is justified based on benefits to fish. What evidence can be provided to show that these benefits are sufficient to continue and expand the project?

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.