Submitting Organization: Agriculture Center of Excellence · Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012 ... collectively in essay

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

1

Project Pre-Application (Please use the Up, Down, Left & Right Arrows to move from Field to Field)

Project Title: The Renewable Energy and Soil Regeneration Initiative

Submitting Organization: Agriculture Center of Excellence

Project Contact Information (Complete for each contact)

For additional Contact Info Sheets go to: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Mrs. Ms. First Name: Jason Last Name: Selwitz

Address: 500 Tausick Way City/Town: Walla Walla State: WA Zip: 99362

Telephone # (509) 527-3678 Cell # (808) 640-1264

E-mail address: [email protected]

Project Locations: Provide a brief description of the project location including watershed, stream

reach and position in watershed. We would like to avail of SRF Board Funding to develop relationships

with Conservation Districts in Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and Asotin Counties in Washington and

assess sites/producers willing to work on Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar and/or Holistic Planned Grazing

projects that aid riparian restoration efforts component to the recovery of salmonids and other

threatened aquatic species.

Maps: Provide both a map illustrating project vicinity and a site map. Map descriptions can be placed

in this section but maps should be attached as a separate page. (Contact SRSRB staff to construct

maps and set up project in the HWS prior to pre-application deadline). Please see attached.

http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html


2

Short Description of Project Describe project, what will be done, and what the anticipated benefits

Will be in 1500 characters or less.

NOTE: Many audiences, including the SRFB, SRFB’s Technical Review Panel, media, legislators, and

the public who may inquire about your project use this description. Provide as clear, succinct,

and descriptive an overview of your project as possible – many will read these 1-2 paragraphs!

• The description should state what is proposed.

• Identify the specific problems that will be addressed by this project, and why it is important to do

at this time.

• Describe how, and to what extent, the project will protect, restore, or address salmon habitat.

• Describe the general location, geographic scope, and targeted species/stock.

• This short description should be the summary of the detailed proposal set out under the

Evaluation Proposal, with particular emphasis on questions 1-4.

The PRISM database limits project descriptions to 1500 characters (including spaces); any excess text will be deleted. Additional detail should be provided in the project proposal!

We have submitted a full application to the NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant program focused on Renewable Energy, Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar, and Holistic Planned Grazing. The chief collaborators in the Renewable Energy and Soil Regeneration Initiative (RESRI) include the Agriculture Center of Excellence, Walla Walla Community College, the Umatilla National Forest, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Savory Institute, Wallowa Resources, the Walla Walla Conservation District, the SE WA NRCS Soil Conservation, and the Nork Fork John Day Watershed Council. We would like to avail of SRF Board Funding to develop relationships with Conservation Districts in Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and Asotin Counties in SE Washington and assess sites/producers willing to work on Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar and/or Holistic Planned Grazing projects that aid riparian restoration efforts component to the recovery of salmonids and other threatened aquatic species.


3

Preliminary Design Description: Describe the preliminary project design that will be used to address the need described above. This section may be used to provide a more detailed description than provided above. Not required for pre-application (Max one page) We will perform soil and water assessments on upland and riparian areas within the watersheds and reaches mentioned as Priorityareas in the MSA by working in coordination with the Conservation Districts in Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and Asotin Counties, in addition to, the WDFW, Dept. of Ecology, the WSDA, the NRCS, and WSU Extension. Estimated Budget: List SRFB request match and total project costs Budget Items

Cost/Unit Unit Matching Funds

SRFB Request

Project Cost

Cash Cost Share secured

$1,428,621.00

In-kind Cost Share secured

$446,638.00

NRCS CIG requested (July 20 = decision time)

$999,830.25

Request to SRSRB

$77,521.50

Total Matching $$2,875,089.25 Total SRFB Request $$77,521.50

Total Project Cost $$2,952,610.75 Evidence that this project is part of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan: List the HWS project number and title of project as stated in the 3 Year Plan. If project is not directly stated in the 3 Year Plan list the general project category your project pertains to and describe the correlation. On upland and riparian areas within the watersheds and reaches mentioned as Priorityareas in the MSA -- within Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and Asotin Counties where producers and the Conservation Districts agree to work.

This is the end of the PRE-APPLICATION When submitting your draft application, make sure to updates the pre-application information where pertinent as well as completing the following draft application. The pre-application will become part of the draft application to reduce redundant forms.


4

SRFB Draft Application Information

Draft Date Submitted to SRSRB 4/13/2012

Project Type: (check one)

Acquisition Acquisition/Restoration

Passage, Diversion, Barrier Inventory/Design

Upland

Non-Capital In-Stream Riparian

Applicant / Organization Information

Organization Name: Agriculture Center of Excellence

Organization Type (check one)

City/Town County Conservation District Native American Tribe Non-profit Organization RFEG Special Purpose District State Agency

Updated Vicinity / Site Maps & Photos Please submit photos as JPEG or other non PDF picture format. Maps and designs maybe submitted

in photo or PDF format.

Vicinity Map Attached: Site Map Attached: Aerial or Site Specific Photos Attached: Preliminary Designs or Field Sketches:


5

Summary of Funding Request and Match Contribution

Remember to update this section whenever changes are made to your cost estimates. TOTAL PROJECT COST (A + B) (Sponsor Match & SRFB Contribution) $2,952,610.75 A. Sponsor Match Contribution (15% minimum is required for match) Appropriation/Cash $1,428,621.00 Bonds – Council Bonds – Voter Cash Donations Conservation Futures Donations Donated Equipment Donated Labor $446,638.00 Donated Land Donated Materials Donated Property Interest Force Account Force Acct – Equipment Force Acct – Labor Force Acct – Material Grants Grant – Federal $999,830.25 Grant – Local Grant – Private Grant – State Grant – IAC Grant – Other Total Sponsor Match Contribution (15% Minimum Match Required of a total Project Cost)

$2,875,089.25

B. SRFB Contribution (grant request) $5,000 Minimum Request

$77,521.50

Note: *Be sure to identify the name and type of any matching grant in the Application Questionnaire Section. *The Total Project Cost must equal the totals from the following Cost Estimate Sections.


6

Project Proposal Guides To complete this section download the Project Proposal template that fits your proposed project and attach as a separate document. Check appropriate box below. NOTE: This project proposal will be used primarily to evaluate your project. Please include appropriate metrics within the body of the text. The below documents can be found at http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Attached 1) Restoration, Acquisition and Combination (Restoration & Acquisition) Project 2) Planning Projects (Assessment, design, and Study) and Combination (Planning &

acquisition) Projects 3) Barrier Inventory Projects

Landowner Information

Landowner Acknowledgment Forms (Remember to complete the Landowner Acknowledgement form for each Landowner.)

To complete this section download the landowner acknowledgment form and have the landowner complete the form and submit a copy with the final application. Final applications without signed agreement forms may not be considered by the SRSRB for final scoring and ranking. These forms can be found on the SRSRB web site at: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Current Landowner(s) of the site (name and address). Remember to complete the Landowner Acknowledgement Form. Name: Address: City/Town: State: Zip:

Driving Directions (provide directions that will enable staff to locate the project):

This is the END of the DRAFT APPLICATION.

Don’t forget to update the pre-project information to reflect

changes, if didn’t submit in the pre-application round fill out the pre-application information now.



Section 4: Project Proposals

Page 1

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18 January 2012

Renewable Energy and Soil Regeneration Initiative Agriculture Center of Excellence & Walla Walla Community College 500 Tausick Way Walla Walla, WA 99362 509.527.3678; www.agcenterofexcellence.com/blog

2012 Project Proposal for Planning Projects (Assessment, Design, and Study) and Combination Planning and Acquisition Projects, Excluding Barrier Inventories

Please respond to each question individually – do not summarize your answers collectively in essay format. Local citizen and technical advisory groups will use this information to evaluate your project. Limit your response to eight pages.

Submit this proposal as a PRISM attachment titled “Project Proposal.”

NOTE: Sponsors of barrier inventory projects should NOT fill out this proposal. They should instead use the Barrier Inventory Project Proposal.

1. Project Overview

A. Describe the primary goal and objectives of this project. When answering this question please refer to chapter 4 of the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines online at wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00043 for a definition of restoration goals and objectives. To assess sites and build relationships with willing landowners in Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and Asotin Counties (WA) to identify where we can work in the near future on Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar, and/or Holistic Planned Grazing projects to restore soils, aid vegetation recovery, and improve water quality and quantity in-stream. Irrigation Efficiency projects can realize direct cost savings to producers by reducing demands for water and energy – resulting in greater water volumes available for aquatic species. Biochar application can improve soil moisture retention and may increase seed germination rates. Holistic Planned Grazing can provide producers with lower input costs, restored vegetation and soils, greater income through increased livestock health and reduced irrigation needs.

B. Describe the location of the project in the watershed, including the name

of the water body(ies), upper and lower extent of the project (if only a portion of the watershed is targeted), and whether the project occurs in the near-shore, estuary, main stem, tributary, off channel, or other location. TBD upland and riparian habitats within priority Marine Stewardship Area reaches in Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and Asotin Counties where in-stream aquatic species recovery efforts have been accomplished or are planned and the landowners/land managers are willing to work on Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar, and/or Holistic Planned Grazing activities to enhance aquatic species recovery efforts.

http://www.agcenterofexcellence.com/blog

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00043


Page 2


C. Provide an overview of current project site conditions and the nature,

source, and extent of the salmon recovery problem(s) or gap in knowledge that the project will address. Include current and historic factors important to understanding the need for this project. Be specific – avoid general statements. When possible, list your sources of information by citing specific studies, reports, and other documents.

For fish passage design/feasibility studies, concisely describe the passage problem (outfall, velocity, slope, etc.), the current barrier (age, material, shape, and condition), whether it is a complete or partial barrier, and the amount and quality of habitat to be opened if the barrier is corrected.

Projects that include acquisition should refer to the supplemental questions later in this worksheet for further guidance on information to include in their problem statement.

Sites are TBD. Please see 1.D. for justification and reasoning.

D. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project and how it will address the problem described in question 1C. (Proposals that include an assessment or inventory should describe its design and methodology.)

Irrigation Efficiencies: The team will conduct a feasibility study with at least eight (8) producers (2 per county; 4 counties) to assess the viability of Irrigation Efficiency projects. The site and resource assessment will feature: head measurement; analysis of system water delivery capacity; existing annual power consumption, water use, and anticipated savings; site issues and modifications indicated; and a preliminary layout of project facilities. The study will also include: a technology review and recommendations, including identifying where micro-hydro may be used to reduce pressure in the system when it is not needed AND produce supplemental electricity; preliminary engineering; regulatory and permitting considerations; sources of financing and incentives; review of project partners and participants; estimated project development costs; financial assessment; project risks, management plan, and insurance requirements; development timeline; and recommendations. After the Feasibility Analysis is complete, there will be a clear idea of viability of each project and costs associated with permitting, engineering, and development, as well as the anticipated energy and water savings. Water savings, when realized, will mean increases to cfs which will benefit the recovery of aquatic species. Biochar: The Umatilla National Forest (see Letter of Support), Agriculture Center of Excellence, WWCC, Wallowa Resources, the Savory Institute, and the Walla Walla County Conservation District will work in concert to produce and ready biochar from forest slash, woody invasive plants (false indigo, tree of heaven, and possibly Japanese knotweed), waste grape vine canes, and possibly wheat straw. Umatilla National Forest will conduct hazard fuel reduction projects within Wildland Urban Interfaces (WUIs). The biomass (slash) from the hazard fuel reduction will be


Page 3


fed into a mobile fast pyrolysis unit to generate syngas (volatile vapor and gas); the process allows for the condensation of vapor into a liquid fuel (bio-oil) and capture of biochar for soil amendments and carbon sequestration. Some biochar will be left on-site in the forests to improve the site, buffer dry forest conditions from climate variability, insects, disease, and invasive plants; in addition to sequestering carbon below the soil surface, at reduced risk of fire loss. Surplus biochar not used by RESRI stakeholders will be sold by the producers to Walking Point Industries to add to their soil amendment products. We would like to identify producers in Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and/or Asotin counties that agree to demonstrate and evaluate the application of the biochar as a soil amendment to forest, riparian, and rangelands to increase moisture/water retention and nutrient concentrations to enhance vegetation recovery in upland and riparian sites. Once applied, RESRI will monitor the effect of biochar to evaluate how the treatments work in improving recovery of nutrition and organic poor soils in forest, rangeland, and riparian restoration projects, while sequestering a stable form of carbon. Biochar applications of 3.6T/acre -- from approximately 12 BDT of biomass -- have shown in previous research to increase soil moisture about 22% in coarse soils. Biochar is negatively charged and attracts positively charged nutrient ions, such as K, P, N, and Ca. Biochar is comparable to horticultural charcoal (an expensive project) used to bring high value African violets into balance. Biochar can reduce erosion by expediting vegetation growth and improving water retention in soils. Biochar is an inert particulate and has the same affect in streams and rivers as would charcoal washing off of a previously burned by wildfire site. Biochar has 5-8 pH. RESRI, for those producers that are interested, has the ability to have native grass seeds coated with biochar by United Agriculture in Idaho facilitated by the Umatilla National Forest. RESRI can also work with interested producers to broadcast or embed biochar in the soils. In addition to soil moisture, RESRI will work with the producers to analyze, track, and communicate pH, soil nutrients, root depth, and growth rates in relationship to invasive plants and compared to untreated native grass seeds. References: Biochar applications:

McElligott, Kristin; Page-Dumroese, Deborah; Coleman, Mark. 2011. Bioenergy production systems and biochar application in forests: potential for renewable energy, soil enhancement, and carbon sequestration. Res. Note RMRS-RN-46. Fort Collins, CO; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 14 p.

Improving Forest Resiliency with Biochar: (See next page)

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn046.pdf







Page 5


Holistic Planned Grazing: RESRI will host a Regional Grazing Conference in Feb. 2013 with follow-up demonstration sites as follows: at least 2 in Wallowa County (OR); 1 in Union County (OR); 1 in Grant County (OR); at least 1 in SE Washington; and possibly 1 site in west-central Idaho. We will invite all stakeholders directly party to the NRCS CIG grant proposal to the Regional Grazing Conference, follow-up workshops, and demonstrations at the localized demonstration sites. We will solicit participation from producers within Asotin, Garfield, Whitman, and Columbia Counties in WA, and producers in west-central Idaho, by working through their respective local Conservation Districts; members of the Salmon Recovery Board; and Watershed program representatives from the Nez Perce Tribe. We will invite regulatory officials from OR, WA, and ID, such as the Departments of Fish and Wildlife. By working in unison with mandates from the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board’s Salmon Plan, the collaborating ranchers will utilize Holistic Planned Grazing to restore rangelands degraded by conventional grazing practices and invasive plants. Soil Regeneration through Holistic Planned Grazing: 1. 3-day Regional Grazing Conference

• Secure participation from at least 30 rural ranchers in WA, OR, and ID 2. Localized Workshops, Demonstration Sites, and Site tours

• With buy-in established from Union and Wallowa Counties in OR, partnership with the North Fork John Day Watershed Council for Grant County, OR, and support from OR Department of Fish and Wildlife, the challenge will be to develop hosts in SE WA Counties and west-central ID. However, RESRI has already contacted the Asotin County Conservation District and the Nez Perce/Watershed team, and will continue to contact other Holistic Management practitioners and conservation districts where grazing is most concentrated in the region to make in-roads and develop relationships.

• Demonstrate and quantify the time and financial benefits of Holistic Planned Grazing that is directly meaningful to rural producers’ bottom lines. Without capturing the social and economic benefits, we will not be able to have the positive feedback loop towards restoring ecological function to our landscapes and waterways, and the species that depend on these ecosystems to thrive.

• The fact is that the Columbia Plateau and Blue Mountain Ecosystems are sensitive to overgrazing by any herbivore. Just as behavior due to improperly managed livestock can destroy the upland and riparian resources on any river, the trophic cascade research shows that sedentary elk in Yellowstone significantly damaged willow and aspen communities. These riparian areas have sense begun to heal as animal behavior changed due to the return of predators. They do not have a CREP protecting these areas from grazing. Behavior of the herbivore provides the common denominator of land degrading, or healing, and not the species of herbivore. For instance, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Water Optimization Report, Sept. 1990, estimates that proper grazing management will improve July flow in the Upper John Day by 25% and proper grazing management on riparian areas will increase July flow by 15%. This is most significant toward the desired 30 cfs in the John Day main-stem. The BOR Water

http://www.cof.orst.edu/cascades/

http://www.cof.orst.edu/cascades/


Page 6


Optimization report supports the Holistic Grazing Planning experience, which demonstrates that proper grazing management can increase Soil Organic Matter (SOM) by 2% in 3-5 years. Each 1% will store an additional 16,000 gallons of water in the soil mantle, which flattens out flow by reducing early season runoff and increasing late season flow. This requires grazing ruminants in a brittle environment. There is no literature demonstrating the benefit of properly managed livestock vs. total rest. The literature revolves around properly managed livestock vs. improperly managed livestock. This hole must be closed if we are to make informed decisions going forward. It may be as simple as gathering literature from the Yellowstone experience that demonstrates healing riparian areas means changing herbivore behavior and not excluding land.

• Second, rest provides such a powerfully, positive response to riparian areas that have not been managed properly, that we forget to evaluate in later years. After chemical decomposition and lack of disturbance has taken their toll, bare ground and weeds increase. Closing these and other holes in the literature could be an important product of RESRI’s Regional Grazing Conference and demonstration sites to advance Holistic Planned Grazing on federal and private lands in the region as an adaptive management tool.

Holistic Management (HM) Holistic Management is based on a decision making framework which results in ecologically regenerative, economically viable and socially sound management of the world’s grasslands. It was first developed over 40 years ago by Allan Savory, a Zimbabwean biologist, game ranger, politician, farmer, and rancher, who was searching for ways to save the beautiful savannah and its wildlife in southern Africa. Holistic Management teaches people about the relationship between large herds of wild herbivores and the grasslands and then helps people develop strategies for managing herds of domestic livestock to mimic those wild herds to heal the land. Holistic Management is based on four key principles that highlight the symbiotic relationship between large herds of grazing animals, their predators and the grasslands. Holistic Management embraces and honors the complexity of nature, and uses nature’s models to bring practical approaches to land management, and restoration. The planning procedures embedded in the Holistic Management approach are designed to incorporate this complexity and work with it. It does take time, skills and discipline to use this decision-making framework successfully – but the economic, environmental and social benefits are enormous. Please see pdf of HM case studies. Allan Savory was born in Rhodesia, Southern Africa. He pursued an early career as a research biologist and Game Ranger in the British Colonial Service of what was then Northern Rhodesia (today Zambia), and later as a farmer, game rancher, politician and international consultant, based in Southern Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe). In the 1960s, while working on the interrelated problems of increasing poverty and disappearing wildlife, he made a significant breakthrough in understanding what was causing the degradation and desertification of the world’s grassland ecosystems. Savory served as a Member of Parliament in the latter days of Zimbabwe’s civil war and leader of the opposition to the ruling party headed by Ian Smith. Exiled in 1979, as a result of his opposition, he immigrated to the United States where he co-founded the non-profit organization Holistic Management International with his wife, Jody


Page 7


Butterfield. In 1992 they formed a second organization near Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe – the Africa Centre for Holistic Management, donating a ranch that would serve as a learning site for people all over Africa. In 2003, Savory was awarded the Banksias International Award for the person or organization doing the most for the environment on a global scale. His current work in Africa is receiving much praise and recognition and the Africa Centre for Holistic Management was announced the winner of the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Award for the organization working to solve the world's most pressing problems. Savory and Butterfield are co-authors of Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision-Making (Island Press, 1999) and Holistic Management Handbook: Healthy Land, Healthy Profits (Island Press, 2006) and numerous papers and articles. Renewable Energy and Soil Regeneration Initiative: Regional Grazing Conference Regional Grazing Conference (3 days) with Keynote: Allan Savory -- Topic: “Holistic Management: a planning process for Triple Bottom Line Success” Workshops Tracks: 1. Holistic Financial Planning: The keys to true wealth generation

• We will teach participants how to identify, evaluate and determine relevant enterprises to be pursued, increase total income, and plan a profit. Then we will categorize and allocate $ to expenses, categorized in a strategic way to secure the creation of TBL wealth. We will identify responsible people for each expense and train them in the process of monitoring, control and re-planning of plan.

2. Holistic Planned Grazing: properly managed livestock as revitalization tool • Explore how we’ll take into account a whole range of habitat considerations, wildlife

considerations, livestock performance needs, water restrictions, poisonous plant problems, social needs, etc. And all that, of course, will be on top of the basic need to achieve good grazing distribution, control of woody species, etc. and provide opportunity for plants to recover post-grazing.

3. Resilience Monitoring: the power of uncovering the facts • Coordinating and supporting comprehensive social, ecological, and financial

monitoring. Teaching practitioners the importance of monitoring as well as the techniques and tools needed to collect data that will increase our understanding of healthy planning on the land.

4. Leadership – “Leading for Resiliency” • Empowering life-change through TBL values – Creating sustainable change • Extraordinary Holistic Teams – Driven by values, honoring complexity, and excelling in a

world of finite resources. • Building a legitimate culture of sustainability: Level 5 Leadership; Leadership & Self-

deception; 5 Dysfunctions of a Team. 5. Entrepreneurial Success: making your land based small business thrive

• Entrepreneurial values driving holistic decision making: Proactive vs. Reactive • Execution: 1 page business plan – building the right focus and commitment in your

own holistic context. • Execution: Managing key holistic strategies for the success of your whole under

management. • Execution: Resilience Monitoring for creating results.


Page 8


E. Clearly list and describe all products that will be produced (i.e., project deliverables). If the project will produce a design, please specify the level of design that will be developed (conceptual, preliminary, or final); design deliverables must comply with those described in Appendix D-1, D-2, and D-3.

In Columbia, Garfield, Whitman, and Asotin Counties:

1. Report on Irrigation Efficiency opportunities and assessment of potential projects;

2. Develop agreements with landowners/land managers/producers to apply biochar to improve soil moisture to aid in vegetation and soil recovery at upland and riparian sites; and

3. Develop agreements with landowners/land managers/producers to attend and participate in the Regional Grazing Conference and/or to develop Holistic Planned Grazing demonstration sites.

F. If the project will occur in phases or is part of a larger recovery strategy,

describe the goal of the overall strategy, explain individual sequencing steps and which steps are included in this application.

The long-term RESRI goal is to use renewable energy, irrigation efficiencies, biochar, and Holistic Planned Grazing activities, integrated as appropriate, to build a positive feedback loop for rural producers where their demand for cost savings, water, and power -- generate increased demand to restore the very forest, riparian, and rangeland ecosystems that underlie agricultural production.

G. Has any part of this project previously been reviewed or funded by the SRFB? If yes, please provide the project name and SRFB project number (or year of application if a project number is not available). If the project was withdrawn from funding consideration or was not awarded SRFB funding, please describe how the current proposal differs from the original. N/A

H. If your proposal includes an assessment or inventory (NOTE: project may

extend across a wide area and cover multiple properties):

i. Describe any previous or ongoing assessment or inventory work in your project’s geographic area. Holistic Planned Grazing:

• Whitman County has a Managed Grazing set of goals and Best Management Practices that are in-line with Holistic Planned Grazing: http://whitmancd.scc.wa.gov/whitmancdpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Managed-Grazing.pdf. For the conceptual Palouse Prairie Protection (32-00161) project:

http://whitmancd.scc.wa.gov/whitmancdpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Managed-Grazing.pdf

http://whitmancd.scc.wa.gov/whitmancdpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Managed-Grazing.pdf


Page 9


http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3701 -- we could work with the WDFW to identify wetlands connected to key salmon bearing streams and develop Holistic Grazing Plans with willing landowners while formulating wetland restoration projects that utilize biochar to spur vegetation recovery.

• In Asotin County, if grazing occurs on properties like the Magden’s or WDFW’s, we could provide some value add by working with the landowner(s) to develop a Holistic Grazing Plan to encourage riparian regeneration: 1. Riparian Restoration (Magden’s) (35-00402):

http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3592; and

2. Riparian Restoration on WDFW Property in Asotin Creek (35-00237): http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3708.

• If there are interested producers/land managers, we could work with the project leads to work with producers to utilize biochar and/or adopt Holistic Planned Grazing for the Alpowa Habitat Restoration and Protection (35-00469) project: http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/17647

Biochar:

• There are no producers within the four counties utilizing biochar to our knowledge.

• We could work on the conceptual Pataha Creek willow Whips (35-00468) project: http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/17610 – to utilize biochar to aid in willow plantings.

• We could work to apply biochar to tree plantings for the Pataha Riparian Restoration (35-00408) project: http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/14227

• We could work with the Upper Pataha Restoration (35-00173) project: http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3297 -- to conduct hazard fuel reductions with the USFS and produce biochar to apply it on-site to sequester carbon in the soil, and improve water quality through aiding the regeneration of native vegetation.

Irrigation Efficiencies:

• As for Irrigation Efficiencies, there is a pending feasibility study for the Hearn Ditch (Touchet River) (32-00247): http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3646, but this does not seem like a project in need of pressure reduction that could utilize micro-hydro.

http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3701









Page 10


• However, there is a Conceptual Project for Irrigation Efficiency Assessment Upper Touchet River (A32-00279): http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/15890 that could be a fit, as well as,

• Joseph Creek Irrigation Efficiency & Riparian Restoration (WDFW Land) (35-00240): http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/12699;

• We could help carry out the assessment/feasibility study for the Pataha Water Efficiency Project (35-00081) project: http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3296;

• We complete the feasibility study for the Alpowa Creek Irrigation Efficiency Projects (35-00263): http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/10256; and

• Evaluate the potential to use micro-hydro as a pressure reducer and net power generator for pumping on the West End Ditch (Columbia County) Phase 2 Laterals (32-00563) project: http://hwsconnect.ekosystem.us/Project/320/3652.

There seems to be potential for Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar, and Holistic Planned Grazing projects within the four counties and the first step is to communicate with producers and conservation districts to introduce concepts and answer questions -- while building rapport and trust. With those that are willing and interested, we can conduct further assessments and projects as described previously.

ii. Describe how the assessment or inventory addresses the stages and

elements in Guidance on Watershed Assessment for Salmon (Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, May 2001, www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/governorlocke/gsro/watershed/watersh ed.pdf). Our project is best in-line with the prescriptions for Riparian Habitat – by using Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar, and Holistic Planned Grazing projects to: 1. Manage livestock so they enhance vegetation and soil

regeneration in riparian areas rather than contribute to net degradation;

2. Increase inputs of water for in-stream use and the quality of the water;

3. Removal of invasive plant species; and 4. Enhance near stream native vegetation recovery by increasing

soil moisture levels and ecological function of riparian areas.

I. If your proposal includes developing a design: N/A

i. Will the project design be developed by a licensed professional engineer? If your project will not be designed by a professional engineer, please describe the qualifications and experience of your project design team.






http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/governorlocke/gsro/watershed/watershed.pdf




Page 11


ii. For final design projects, if you do not intend to apply for permits as part of this project’s scope of work, please explain why and when permit applications will be submitted.

iii. For design projects intending to provide no match, verify you meet ALL of the following eligibility criteria. N/A

1. The project addresses a particular problem at a specific

location. (The project cannot include a general reach or watershed assessment to both identify and design a project.)

2. Funding request is $200,000 or less.

3. The project will be completed within 18 months of the

SRFB funding meeting. (Design-only projects will not be eligible for a time extension.)

4. The project will develop a preliminary design or final

project design. See Appendix D-2 and D-3 for design definitions and required deliverables.

J. If your proposal includes a fish passage or screening design: N/A

i. Provide the Priority Index (PI) or Screening Priority Index (SPI)

number and describe how it was generated (physical survey, reduced sample full survey, expanded threshold determination, or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife generated [list source, such as a study or inventory]). Refer to the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual at wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/fishbarr.htm for guidance.

ii. For fish passage design projects, identify other fish passage barriers

downstream or upstream of this project.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/fishbarr.htm


Page 12


2. Salmon Recovery Context

A. Describe the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project.

Species Life History

Present (egg, juvenile,

Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising)

ESA Coverage (Y/N)

Life History Target (egg, juvenile,

Specific TBD

B. Describe how this project fits within your regional recovery plan or local lead entity strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat in the watershed (i.e., Does the assessment fill a data gap identified as a priority in the lead entity’s strategy or regional recovery plan? Does the project address a priority action, occur in a priority area, or target priority fish species?). For examples, please section H beginning on page 8.

C. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of at a later

date. Consider its sequence relative to other needs in the watershed and the current level and imminence of risk to habitat in your discussion. Please section H beginning on page 8.

3. Project Development

A. Describe other approaches and design alternatives that were considered

to achieve the project’s objectives and why the proposed alternative was selected.

B. Explain how the project’s cost estimates were determined. Please include

a detailed project cost estimate and attach in PRISM. Clearly label the attachment in PRISM “Cost Estimate.” See attached MS Excel Spreadsheet.

C. Include a Partner Contribution Form (Appendix J), when required, from

each partner outlining the partner’s role and contribution to the project. Refer to Section 3 of this manual for information on when a Partner Contribution Form is required.

D. List all landowner names. If the proposed project occurs on land not

owned by the grant applicant, include a signed Landowner Acknowledgement Form (Appendix K) when applicable, from each landowner acknowledging that his or her property is proposed for SRFB funding consideration. Refer to Section 3 of this manual for information on when a Landowner Acknowledgement Form is required.


Page 13


E. Describe your experience managing this type of project.

4. Tasks and Schedule. List and describe the major tasks and schedule you will use

to complete the project. Non-capital projects should be completed within two years of funding approval.

5. Constraints and Uncertainties. Each project should include an adaptive

management approach that provides for contingency planning. State any constraints, uncertainties, possible problems, delays, or unanticipated expenses that may hinder completion of the project. Explain how you will address these issues as they arise and their likely impact on the project.


Page 14


Supplemental Questions for Projects that Include

Acquisition (Applies to Combination Projects) N/A

1. Information to include in item 1C above: Describe the habitat types, size and quality on site (forested riparian/floodplain, wetlands, tributary, main stem, off- channel, bluff-backed beach, barrier beach, open coastal inlet, estuarine delta, pocket estuary, uplands, etc.), critical areas on site, and any other features that make the site unique. Describe existing land use.

2. Describe the type of acquisition proposed (e.g., fee title, conservation easement).

3. Describe the size of the property to be acquired. Attach a site map in PRISM

showing the property boundary, habitat features, easements, roads, and buildings, as appropriate.

4. Describe the property’s proximity to publically owned or protected properties in

the vicinity. Attach a map in PRISM that illustrates this relationship.

5. If uplands are included on the property to be acquired, state their size and explain why they are essential for protecting salmonid habitat.

6. State the percentage of the total project area that is intact and fully functioning

habitat.

7. Property restoration needs. Explain the degree to which habitat on site is impaired and the nature and extent of required restoration. Are there levees, riprap, infrastructure, or other features on this or nearby properties that inhibit channel migration or floodplain-stream interaction? Describe the likely prioritization, timeframe, and funding sources for proposed restoration activities.

8. List structures (home, barn, outbuildings, fence) on the property and any

proposed modifications. Note: In general, buildings on SRFB-assisted acquisitions must be removed. Refer to Section 2 of this manual for information about ineligible project elements.

9. Describe adjacent land uses (upstream, downstream, across stream, upland).

10. Describe the proximity of the property to other protected or functioning habitats,

and the size and quality of those protected properties.

11. Describe the:

A. Zoning/land use

B. Shoreline Master Plan designation


Page 15


C. Portion of site within 100-year floodplain

D. Portion of site within designated floodway

Explain why federal, state, and local regulations are insufficient to protect the property from degradation.

12. If buying the land, explain why the acquisition of conservation easements to

extinguish certain development, timber, agricultural, mineral, or water rights will not achieve the goals and objectives of the project.

13. For acquisition projects intending to purchase multiple properties within an area,

identify all the possible parcels that will provide similar benefits and certainty of success and provide a clear description of how parcels will be prioritized and how priority parcels will be pursued for acquisition.

14. Describe your approach to long-term stewardship of the land. Identify any

planned use of the property, including the upland areas.

Renewable Energy and Soil Regeneration Initiative (RESRI)Assessment of potential Irrigation Efficiency, Biochar, and Holistic Planned Grazing projects in Columbia, Garfield, W Request to Snake River Salmon Recovery Board for SRF Board funding in 2012

Item Unit Cost Amount Unit TotalWatershed Ecology Instructor 50.00$ 360 hour 18,000.00$ WWCCProject Manager 50.00$ 360 hour 18,000.00$ ACE/WWCCVideo Editing 16.00$ 60 hour 960.00$ Fringe Benefits -- 35% of Personnel 12,600.00$ Travel 0.55$ 1000 mile 550.00$ Equipment 300.00$ Soil moisture probesSupplies 5,000.00$ Third party soil and water testing

Contractual

12,000.00$ Other -$

Total Direct Charges 67,410.00$ Indirect Charges --

15% of all totals 10,111.50$ TOTALS 77,521.50$

Split evenly between Wallowa Resources (Irrigation), USFS (Biochar), and Savory Institute (Holistic

Planned Grazing) for assessment design, action, analysis, and review assistance

Whitman, and Asotin Counties

Documents

Submitting Organization: Agriculture Center of Excellence · Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012 ... collectively in essay