FY07-09 proposal 199401807
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Habitat For Fall Chinook, Steelhead in the Lower Snake and Tucannon Subbasins |
| Proposal ID | 199401807 |
| 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. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Duane Bartels | Pomeroy Conservation District | duanebar@pomeroy-wa.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Duane Bartels | Pomeroy Conservation District | duanebar@pomeroy-wa.com |
| Duane Bartels | Pomeroy Conservation District | duanebar@pomeroy-wa.com |
| Duane Bartels | Pomeroy Conservation District | duanebar@pomeroy-wa.com |
| Duane Bartels | Pomeroy Conservation District | duanebar@pomeroy-wa.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Tucannon
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| N46 | W117 | Alpowa Creek | Alpowa Creek Watershed |
| N46 | W117 | Deadman Creek | Deadman Creek Watershed |
| N46 | W117 | Meadow Creek | Meadow Creek Watershed |
| N46 | W117 | Pataha Creek | Pataha Watershed |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Snake River ESUsecondary: Chinook Snake River Fall ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| 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
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199708800 | Pataha Cr Stream Restoration | Older contract addressing direct riparian restoration efforts. Tree planting, bank stabilization, fencing. |
| 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-CR-01 | CREP program | program that focuses directly on riparian restoration efforts to improve salmon habitat and water quality |
| Other: Conservation Commission | 06-47-LV-01 | Livestock Influenced Water Quality | program directly related to livestock impacts from AFO/CAFO on 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 | G0300114 | Garfield County Riparian Restoration Project | project to assist through CS the management of livestock operations to improve water quality |
| Other: Department of Ecology | GO500115 | Garfield County Riparian Restoration Project #2 | Continuation of grant G0300114. |
| 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: Department of Ecology | C0300165 | Metering Interagency Agreement C0300165 | CS program to install water use meters on all surface withdrawl irrigation systems in the county |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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<EQIP, and CREP in those area where such programs are not available |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est 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 |
||||
| 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 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| Plant Vegetation | Cost-share for vegetation plantings | Plant trees and grass in riparian area | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives 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 |
Metrics * # 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 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 Reduce embeddedness in Lower Tucannon & Pataha Reduce embeddedness in Ping Forks and SF Deadman |
Metrics * # 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 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 |
Metrics * # 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 |
||||
| 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 |
||||
| 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 |
||||
| 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 |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | $600,736 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | 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
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $195,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $195,000 |
Comments: This program will continue at its present rate for at least 10 to 15 years. |
Future O&M 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: 2020
Comments: 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 and other documents
| Sponsor response to ISRP for proposal 199401807 - Document 1 | Jul 2006 |
| Sponsor response to ISRP for proposal 199401807 - Document 2 | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $64,000 | $65,000 | $64,000 | $193,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $64,000 | $65,000 | $64,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
|
Comments: Move to Lower Snake in database. ISRP fundable qualified: programmatic habitat m&e issue, see decision memo discussion. |
||||||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC 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?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC 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.