Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
|
| Section 1: General Administrative Information |
| Process Information: |
| Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized |
Status |
Form Generator |
| January 9, 2006 |
Finalized |
Joseph Peterson |
|
|
| Proposal Type: |
New |
| Proposal Number: |
200718100 |
| Proposal Name: |
Lower Lawyer Creek Stream Restoration Project |
| Agency, Institution or Organization: |
Flying B Ranch |
| Short Description: |
The projects primary focus is to enhance anadromous species habitat. Secondary but important benefits are to enhance wetlands, provide flood control and enhance habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. |
| Information Transfer: |
Electronic |
| |
| Project Proposal Contacts |
| Contact |
Organization |
Address |
Phone/Email |
Roles |
Notes |
|
Form Submitter |
| Joseph Peterson |
Flying B Ranch |
2900 Lawyer Creek Road
Kamiah, Idaho 83536 |
Ph: 208 935 0755
Fax: 208 935 0705
Email: josephp@flyingbranch.com |
Form Submitter |
|
|
All Assigned Contacts |
|
|
| Section 2: Project Location |
| Sponsor Province: |
Mountain Snake |
ARG Province: |
No Change |
| Sponsor Subbasin: |
Clearwater |
ARG Subbasin: |
No Change |
| Location(s) at which the action will be implemented |
| Latitude |
Longitude |
Waterbody |
Location Description |
County/State |
Subbasin |
Primary? |
| 46.2127
|
-116.1219
|
Lawyer Cr |
The project would be along three and a half miles of Lawyer Cr in Idaho and Lewis counties centered roughly at the end of Lawyer Cr road. |
Idaho/Lewis, Idaho |
Clearwater |
Yes |
|
|
| Section 3: Focal Species |
| Focal Species: |
| Primary |
Secondary |
Additional Species |
Steelhead Snake River ESU
|
All Anadromous Fish
|
|
|
|
| Section 4: Past Accomplishments |
| Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project |
This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments.
|
|
| Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects |
| Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source) |
| Funding Source |
Related ID |
Related Project Title |
Relationship |
| BPA |
[no entry] |
Lawyer CR ID A-Run Steelhead Spawning & Enhancement |
Project #200706700 is starting to address the problems of upland soil stabilization and decreasing the serverity of run quick run off events. By restoring aquatic habitat and moderating detrimental terrestrial influences, a healthier Lawyer Cr drainage as a whole will result. |
|
|
| Section 6: Biological Objectives |
| Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project |
| Biological Objective |
Full Description |
Associated Subbasin Plan |
Strategy |
Page Nos |
| B-General |
Lawyers Creek is the main waterway on the ranch; in the 1950s, Lawyers Creek was moved to the edge of its floodplain and channelized in order to create a larger area of cropland. Additionally, during the 1996-97 flooding, Lawyers Creek was overloaded with sediment from the eroding banks upstream. Due to the disturbance caused by the previous landowner and the subsequent flooding and erosion, the stream has not been able to maintain the historic population of steelhead and the fisheries and wildlife habitat has continued to decline. Because of the nature and degree of the disturbance, passive restoration will not produce the desired results. Our proposal includes an active approach to restoration that includes returning Lawyers Creek to its approximate original location in the floodplain, restoring steelhead habitat, and creating riparian systems. |
Clearwater |
• Obtain historic fisheries and stream data, and aerial photos (pre-1950s).
• Complete an inventory of current conditions, including fisheries use, year-round flow data, reference reach data, material source and disposal site locations, and aerial photos |
18, 19 |
| Flood Control |
Reduce high water velocities and subsequent erosion and bedload movement into reaches downstream. |
Clearwater |
Includes creating a meander pattern, restoring connectivity with the floodplain, grading and vegetating the banks, and placing instream structures - eliminate the channelization. |
Inventory Pg 46 |
| Q-Improvement of water quality |
By vegetating the stream banks, creating meanders, and incorporating instream habitat structures throughout the stream channel, suspended sediment will be decreased, water will be shaded and cooled, and the water table will be rejuvenated. |
Clearwater |
Includes grading (reduced slopes) and vegetating (intertwining roots) the stream banks, creating meanders in the stream channel for reduced velocity and suspended sediment loads, and incorporating instream habitat structures. Reduced erosion and bedload. |
33 |
| U-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Promotion Expansion |
Complex instream habitat structures for fish will be integrated into the stream including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, riffle and pool sequences, etc., which will provide spawning, rearing, and overwintering habtiat. Riparian plantings will provide shade, cover and food for fish as well as cover and food for bird species. |
Clearwater |
See despcription to left. |
37 |
| Z&BB Riparian Enhancement |
Past manipulation of Lawyers Creek including relocation and channelization, construction of a dike that restricted access of the creek to its floodplain, and the removal of large woody debris has severely degraded the riparian system. |
Clearwater |
Includes vegetating the stream banks with native species to stabilize the banks, create fish and wildlife habitat, create shady areas to cool water temperatures, and reduce invasive species by optimizing native species coverage. |
41-43 |
|
|
| Section 7: Work Elements |
| Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives |
| Work Element Name |
Work Element Title |
Description |
Start Date |
End Date |
Estimated Budget |
| 01: Produce Design and/or Specifications |
Research,Plan, Coordinate, Impliment and Moniter Project |
This portion includes planning the project, monitering the existing conditions, overseeing construction and planting. This will also include all monitering of effectiveness of constructon and sharing of information. |
1/1/2007 |
12/31/2009 |
$232,793 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
B-General
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| 02: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel |
Move stream channel out of the current altered course back to the flood plain |
• Design the new channel meander pattern and location using information from historic data, current up- and downstream data, and Rosgen methodologies.
• Employ a land surveyor to stake out the new channel location on-site.
• The work period is limited to the months of July and August due to fish windows (i.e., spawning) and the ranch season (September 1).
• Create the new channel. Water will still flow through the existing channel during construction activities; we recommend the existing channel be maintained as a high water channel for up to five years following project completion (if not longer).
• Dig the new channel using excavators and dump-trucks; dredged material will be stored at the ranch (specific site to be determined at a later date) for use in improving the existing channel as a high water channel. Build the stream banks at a 3:1 slope.
• Re-direct Lawyer Creek into the new channel and monitor; make necessary adjustments.
• Monitor the new system.
|
7/1/2007 |
8/31/2007 |
$458,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Flood Control
Q-Improvement of water quality
U-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Promotion Expansion
Z&BB Riparian Enhancement
|
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 1.75 miles
|
|
| 03: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity |
Create and/or place instream habitat structures |
Complex instream habitat structures for fish will be integrated into the stream including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, riffles and pools, etc., which will provide spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitat. Riparian plantings will provide shade and cover for fish, as well as food and cover for bird species. |
7/1/2007 |
8/31/2007 |
$109,500 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Flood Control
Q-Improvement of water quality
U-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Promotion Expansion
Z&BB Riparian Enhancement
|
* # of stream miles treated: 3.50 miles
|
|
| 04: Plant Vegetation |
Vegetate new stream course with native stabilizing, shade providing plants. |
Vegetate the new channel stream banks using native riparian species after water is successfully flowing in the new system. This may require temporary irrigation (using the existing system). Include erosion-control fabric below the ordinary high water mark. |
7/1/2007 |
9/30/2007 |
$105,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Flood Control
Q-Improvement of water quality
U-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Promotion Expansion
Z&BB Riparian Enhancement
|
* # of riparian miles treated: 3.50 miles
|
|
| 05: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel |
Move stream channel out of the current altered course back to the flood plain |
[Work Element Description Not Entered] |
7/1/2008 |
8/31/2008 |
$458,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Q-Improvement of water quality
|
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 1.75 miles
|
|
| 06: Increase Instream Habitat Complexity |
Create and/or place instream habitat structures |
[Work Element Description Not Entered] |
7/1/2008 |
8/31/2008 |
$109,500 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Flood Control
Q-Improvement of water quality
U-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Promotion Expansion
Z&BB Riparian Enhancement
|
* # of stream miles treated: 1.75
|
|
| 07: Plant Vegetation |
Vegetate new stream course with native stabilizing, shade providing plants. |
[Work Element Description Not Entered] |
7/1/2008 |
9/30/2008 |
$105,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
B-General
Flood Control
Q-Improvement of water quality
U-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Promotion Expansion
Z&BB Riparian Enhancement
|
* # of riparian miles treated: 1.75 miles
|
|
| 08: Plant Vegetation |
Plant and irrigate if needed larger shade producing trees. |
Vegetating the stream banks with both large and small woody plants will help to cool the creek and provide additional habitat for terrestrial species. |
2/1/2008 |
11/30/2009 |
$10,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Flood Control
Q-Improvement of water quality
U-Fish and Wildlife Habitat Promotion Expansion
Z&BB Riparian Enhancement
|
* # of riparian miles treated: 3.50 miles
* # of riparian miles treated: 3.50 miles
|
|
|
|
| Section 8: Budget |
|
| Itemized Estimated Budget |
| Item |
Note |
FY 2007 Cost |
FY 2008 Cost |
FY 2009 Cost |
| Other |
Implementation |
$672,500 |
$672,500 |
$10,000 |
| Personnel |
Supervisors and consultants |
$110,000 |
$110,000 |
$12,793 |
| Totals |
$782,500 |
$782,500 |
$22,793 |
|
|
| Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets |
| Total Itemized Budget | $1,587,793 |
| Total Work Element budget | $1,587,793 |
|
|
| Cost sharing |
| Funding Source or Organization |
Item or Service Provided |
FY 2007 Est Value ($) |
FY 2008 Est Value ($) |
FY 2009 Est Value ($) |
Cash or in-kind? |
Status |
| Flying B Ranch |
Labor & Equipment |
$75,000 |
$75,000 |
$20,000 |
In-Kind |
Confirmed |
| Totals |
$75,000 |
$75,000 |
$20,000 |
|
|
|
| Section 9: Project Future |
| Project Future Costs and/or Termination |
| FY 2010 Est Budget |
FY 2011 Est Budget |
Comments |
| $10,000 |
$10,000 |
Cooperative monitering with Flying B Ranch and the Nez Perce Tribe |
| Future Operations & Maintenance Costs |
|
| |
| Termination Date |
Comments |
|
|
| |
| Final Deliverables |
|
|
|
| Section 10: Narrative |
|
|
|
Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
|
| Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results |
Account Type:
Expense |
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
|
Primary Focal Species
No Change |
| ARG Comments: |
BPA's in lieu Funding Review of new project proposals (August 3, 2006)
[Download letter and table]
|
BPA's in lieu Rating: 1.0
Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 90%
Status of Cost Share: Confirmed
|
| Notes: Restoring channel meander on private land; assume no ESA or other requirement to do so |
NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Type: | Expense |
| Budget Category: | ProvinceExpense |
| Recommendation: | Do Not Fund
|
| Comments: |
NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Category: | ProvinceExpense |
| Comments: |
|
Local or MSRT Comments: Project not prioritized
|
Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Not fundable
|
| NPCC Comments: The proposal is appreciated for the effort in addressing habitat issues for fish in the basin. However, the proposal is not developed enough to justify a review and response. The proposal does not follow the guide or format, nor indicate a connection to the subbasin plan and its priority within it. Even setting aside concerns with not following the format, the proposal is just too preliminary for a scientific recommendation. Standardized procedures are recommended. The first step would be to initiate an adequately detailed watershed/fisheries assessment to decide whether restoration in this watershed is appropriate. In general, the watershed and fish assessments are not sufficiently described and summarized to make a reasonable judgment on whether Lawyers Creek is a candidate for restoration, and if it were restored, if it would make a meaningful contribution to the subbasin goals for steelhead production. Proponents are encouraged to partner with subbasin planners and further develop their proposal, and continue their interest in steelhead and fish habitat. |
Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Not fundable
|
| NPCC Comments: The proposal is appreciated for the effort in addressing habitat issues for fish in the basin. However, the proposal is not developed enough to justify a review and response. The proposal does not follow the guide or format, nor indicate a connection to the subbasin plan and its priority within it. Even setting aside concerns with not following the format, the proposal is just too preliminary for a scientific recommendation. Standardized procedures are recommended. The first step would be to initiate an adequately detailed watershed/fisheries assessment to decide whether restoration in this watershed is appropriate. In general, the watershed and fish assessments are not sufficiently described and summarized to make a reasonable judgment on whether Lawyers Creek is a candidate for restoration, and if it were restored, if it would make a meaningful contribution to the subbasin goals for steelhead production. Proponents are encouraged to partner with subbasin planners and further develop their proposal, and continue their interest in steelhead and fish habitat. |
Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.
