FY07-09 proposal 200715400
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Douglas County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Previously referred to as the Foster Creek Habitat Conservation Plan (FCHCP) |
| Proposal ID | 200715400 |
| Organization | Foster Creek Conservation District |
| Short description | Implementation of a 20 species habitat conservation plan approved by USFWS and NMFS potentially covering 800,000 acres to minimize and mitiage impacts from farming and ranching activites in Douglas County, Washington. |
| Information transfer | Quarterly updates published in Foster Creek CD's "Conservation Voices." Yearly reports submitted to USFWS and NMFS. Ongoing website updates on Foster Creek CD's website: http://www.fostercreek.net |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Britt Dudek | Foster Creek Conservation District | britt-dudek@wa.nacdnet.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Britt Dudek | Foster Creek Conservation District | britt-dudek@wa.nacdnet.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Columbia Upper Middle
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All WildlifeAdditional: Greater Sage Grouse Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintain and/or enhance habitat function | Improving agricultural practices, fire management, weed control, livestock grazing practices, and road management on existing shrubsteppe. | Upper Middle Columbia | Promote and support implementatin of the Foster Creek Habitat Conservation Plan (aka the Douglas County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan) |
| Maintain and/or enhance habitat function | Improving silviclture, agricultural practices, fire management, weed control, livestock grazing practices, and road management on existing riparian wetlands. | Upper Middle Columbia | Promote and support implementatin of the Foster Creek Habitat Conservation Plan (aka the Douglas County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan) |
| Maintain and/or enhance habitat function | Improving silviclture, agricultural practices, fire management, weed control, livestock grazing practices, and road management on existing herbaceous wetlands. | Upper Middle Columbia | Promote and support implementatin of the Foster Creek Habitat Conservation Plan (aka the Douglas County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan) |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Comprehensive Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation | The Douglas County Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan covers a broad range of habitat conservation and restoration practices on agricultural land within the county. Foster Creek will coordinate and administer its implementation. Actual on-the-ground projects will be accomplished by individual landowners using non- BPA funding. It is challenging to classify its effects with individual work elements since in encompasses many. Work elements addressed by the Douglas County MSHCP will be: 22, 31. 36, 40, 44, 48, 55, 99, 118, 122, 132, 150, 160, 165, 181. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $375,000 |
|
Biological objectives Maintain and/or enhance habitat function Maintain and/or enhance habitat function Maintain and/or enhance habitat function |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Salary only | $66,250 | $66,250 | $66,250 |
| Fringe Benefits | Includes payroll taxes | $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
| Travel | Includes mileage | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
| Supplies | Monitoring equipment | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $18,750 | $18,750 | $18,750 |
| Totals | $125,000 | $125,000 | $125,000 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $375,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $375,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $125,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $125,000 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs: We estimate that with experience, our ongoing project costs will compensate for inflationary cost increases for the first five years of the implementation process.
Termination date: 2054
Comments: This project has a fifty-year horizon. It is a Legacy project that will become a part of the landscape over this time period. After project termination when our incidental take permit expires, we have confidence that take coverage will no longer be necessary.
At this time, the project does not enjoy an endowment or on-going funding stream. It will be a prime goal of the Foster Creek Conservation Distict to secure this type of funding withing the first five years of the project.
Final deliverables: Minimization and mitigation of impacts to fish and wildlife species from agricultural activites in Douglas County, WA. Maximization of habitat potential intersticial fragments non-agricultural land. Down-listing, de-listing, and prevention of listing for threatened, endangered, and species of concern.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The ISRP does not view this as a proposal, but rather an executive summary of a plan. This proposal did not present adequate information to warrant a response. The ISRP wanted to see a justification, objectives, methods, and a monitoring and evaluation of activities that would benefit fish and wildlife. As written, the ISRP found little to no evidence of benefits to fish and wildlife and no evidence that current personnel have qualifications to complete necessary wildlife work. The project needs to more specifically identify how agricultural practices and silviculture will be modified, how wildlife species will be monitored, who will conduct monitoring, when monitoring will occur, and how monitoring information will be evaluated.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The ISRP does not view this as a proposal, but rather an executive summary of a plan. This proposal did not present adequate information to warrant a response. The ISRP wanted to see a justification, objectives, methods, and a monitoring and evaluation of activities that would benefit fish and wildlife. As written, the ISRP found little to no evidence of benefits to fish and wildlife and no evidence that current personnel have qualifications to complete necessary wildlife work. The project needs to more specifically identify how agricultural practices and silviculture will be modified, how wildlife species will be monitored, who will conduct monitoring, when monitoring will occur, and how monitoring information will be evaluated.