FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28004

Additional documents

TitleType
28004 Narrative Narrative
28004 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28004 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLawyer Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project
Proposal ID28004
OrganizationLewis Soil Conservation District (Lewis SCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSharon Kinzer
Mailing addressP.O. Box 237 Nezperce, ID 83543
Phone / email2089372673 / lewisscd@camasnet.com
Manager authorizing this projectJohn Miller, District Chairman
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionReduce sedimentation to improve instream habitat in Lawyer Creek and the lower Clearwater River, and improve upland water storage by implementing best management practices for sediment reduction and water retention.
Target speciesPrimarily Steelhead trout (A-run) and spring Chinook Salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Headwaters (near Cottonwood Butte)
Mouth (Lawyer Creek and Clearwater River confluence near Kamiah, Idaho)
46.2256 -116.0117 Lawyer Creek
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Habitat RPA Action 150
Habitat RPA Action 151
Habitat RPA Action 153

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
199608600 Clearwater Basin Focus Watershed Program Subbasin Planning and Coordination
199901400 Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project Similar watersheds and present land use management schemes, as well as similar identified problems in fisheries.
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Initiate Project Plan a. Lewis SCD initiate contract with selected consultant, review project. 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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Initiate Project Plan 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 2003FY 2004
$23,300$23,300

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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 Part 2. Project Narrative, Sect. f. Proposal Objectives, Tasks and Methods). ongoing $154,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
4. BMP Implementation 2003 2004 $346,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$173,000$173,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
7. 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 monitoring results and evaluation. ongoing $1,200 Yes
d. Initiate feedback loop mechanism ongoing $2,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
7. Documentation and Reporting 2003 2004 $10,400
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$5,200$5,200

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
5. Survey baseline instream and riparian habitat conditions a. Survey instream and riaprian habitat conditions in Lawyer Creek in summer of 2002 to establish baseline set of data 2002 $30,000 Yes
6. Monitor water quality parameters a. Monitoring will take place on a monthly basis to track total suspended solids, turbidity, water temperature and discharge. ongoing $15,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
5. Survey baseline instream and riparian habitat conditions 2003 2004 $0
6. Monitor water quality parameters 2003 2004 $30,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003FY 2004
$15,000$15,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: Project coordinator $37,000
Supplies BMP components (intake risers, underground outlets, erosion control fabric), general office supplies $62,000
Travel Calculated at $0.35/mile $4,300
Indirect Administrative overhead (8%) $8,200
Subcontractor Best Management Practice implementation ($90,000) $90,000
Subcontractor Monitoring ($45,000) $45,000
$246,500
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$246,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$246,500
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

Response needed. This project's part of the field tour was very informative on agricultural aspects and on sediment yield from treated vs. untreated cropland. Effectiveness of the no-till cropping BMP is particularly impressive. The proposal helps define the problem with pertinent background information on wild fish stocks, however, it neither specifies M&E of fish population responses under the project nor states coordination with any other project with respect to biological M&E. The oral presentation was clear but had the disadvantage of revealing a certain lack of coordination of the project with a related project, 28021, i.e., the BMPs for 28004 should accommodate some of the needs expressed in 28021. Personnel from both projects should consult and reach agreements.

The proposal discusses (p. 11) its relationship to Project 28029 (though the number apparently did not exist at time of writing) and states that the two are complementary and non-duplicative.

A modeling analysis suggested that higher peak flows and greater volume of flow have resulted from past agricultural practices. What does this same model suggest regarding the benefits of the work proposed here? It is later suggested in the proposal that 10-yr peak flows could be reduced by 39% by a basin-wide change in land use. Is a basin-wide change in land use planned? If not, how much of an impact might be anticipated? To answer this, some indication of the area treated and benefit of the several BMPs would have to be quantified but that information is lacking. Please provide.

This is basic habitat management, protection and rehabilitation, but it is important that the effort flows from a comprehensive watershed management plan that begins with a condition assessment. To address the limiting factors that a well-planned and documented assessment should reveal, information on the conditions and their effect on survival through freshwater life stages of salmonids must be indicated or referenced. What species and what life stages are negatively responding to low flows, high temperatures, and sedimentation, or a lack of quality pools and cover, how, where and when, and to what comparative level? Of these, which is the priority and how might they be addressed?

This proposal focuses only on the upland work using BMPs. An excellent field presentation of innovative approaches to be included under this land use treatment was provided. BMPs seem appropriate, but should work not also include riparian silviculture and in-stream habitat? Proper functioning condition includes all of the ecosystem components, thus this proposal must be tied to the overall watershed assessment and prescription. Provide this document.

As a treatment approach, BMPs are attractive, and a well-planned adaptive management experiment in use of BMPs may be possible with some coordinated effort among sub-basins. Some tributaries might be selected for treatment with appropriate BMPs while others are not, recognizing that there will also be a need to consider the effect of environmental variability in the experiment design and analysis. The advice of a biometrician and experimental analyst is suggested, along with a cooperative effort from a school of agriculture and land use or ecology for more detailed work. Thus, three layers of response monitoring are suggested, including a before-after trend in physical variables (depending on the treatment, but likely flow, temperature and sediment), more detailed assessment of the physical and biological (fish) response as part of an overall basin approach, and/or experimental research on BMPs. Which layer do they choose? Please provide a summary of how this work was (will be) coordinated through the Focus Group (199706000 and 199608600).

Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling approaches, as suggested, can be instructive, but a control and treatment comparison of flow regimes, temperature, sedimentation (TDS?) and the fish response must be included, along with a clear indication of this project's connection with a basin-wide program of M&E. Likewise, an analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., how much work must be completed before a positive impact is measurable, or what is the likelihood of failure?).

Sharon Kinzer et al provide several newsletters annually, an excellent approach for promoting participation and information exchange locally, but more detailed and scientific reporting is also required, including not only the work accomplishments but also information on response indicators and success or failure in meeting the goals of protecting and enhancing fish production.


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

M4 - Significant cost share is described in the narrative portion of the proposal although it is not mentioned in the budget portion of the proposal.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. The proponents need to complete a watershed assessment that allows identification of critical salmonid life stage usage in the watershed and geographic portions of the basin that warrant restoration and protection activity, but the proposal does not lay out the objective of doing a watershed assessment in sufficient detail. This project is of low priority. It was not demonstrated in the review process that Lawyer Creek has the potential for significant fish production. No work should continue until a watershed assessment is complete and there is clear indication of how this project will be monitored. No work on limiting factors to salmonid life stages has been conducted, or seems in the plans, but such work should follow from the fish habitat assessment as part of an overall watershed assessment. Clearly defined and acceptable WA procedures are required, standardized for the subbasin and basin. For M&E, the advice of a biometrician and experimental analyst is recommended, along with a cooperative effort from a school of agriculture/land use or school of ecology for more detailed work. Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling approaches, as suggested in the proposal, can be instructive, but a control and treatment comparison of flow regimes, temperature, sedimentation and the fish response must be included, along with a clear indication of this project's connection with a basinwide program of M&E. Likewise, an analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., indicate the amount of work required before a positive impact is measurable, and indicate the likelihood of failure).

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Could increase survival by contributing to improvement of water quality and reduction of erratic flow regimes through the implementation of upland agricultural BMPs. However, lack of specifics in proposal prevents evaluation. The target species, a steelhead population, has not been documented in the sub-watershed

Comments
One portion of the BMPs is the protection of riparian areas through riparian buffers, but the proposal does not address the period of time of those buffers, nor how much of this project will be devoted to buffers. Project proponents stated at the project review that the project will follow NRCS standards and that landowners have to commit to a minimum of 10 years. Project could be consistent with RPA 153 if permanent or long term easement, at least > 15 years. This project also does not seem to address the primary limiting factors in the subbasin as identified by the proposal. Like many habitat projects this is a good idea, and it won't hurt, but we question how much it can help anadromous habitat when 80% of the drainage is dry-farm wheat and lentils and the remaining 20% has been logged and grazed intensively for 100 years. Benefits to fish of applying BMPs in a small area will be hard to measure.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
400 (153)


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: