FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33007

Additional documents

TitleType
33007 Narrative Narrative
33007 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation
33007 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleImplement Best Management Practices to improve riparian habitat and upland conditions in the Medicine Lodge watershed.
Proposal ID33007
OrganizationClark Soil Conservation District (Clark SCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDavid F. Ferguson
Mailing addressP. O. Box 790 Boise, ID 83701
Phone / email2083328654 / dferguso@agri.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this projectClark SCD Chariman, Norman Tavenner
Review cycleUpper Snake
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Upper Closed Basin
Short descriptionEnhance riparian habitat and reduce nonpoint source pollution within the Medicine Lodge watershed through the development and implementation of conservation plans on private lands, coordinated with local, state, and federal land managers .
Target speciesYellowstone Cutthroat Trout, Rainbow Trout, Sage Grouse
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
44.0922 -112.455 HUC 17040215, Clark & Jefferson Counties, Idaho
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
9.6.2.1 Habitat actions

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2001 Medicine Lodge Subbasin Review completed by BLM
2001 Medicine Lodge TMDL Subbasin Assessment completed by IDEQ
2000 Extensive riparian assessment on Medicine Lodge Creek, private lands

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
98002 Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment Data share & coordination of monitoring activities

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Develop conservation plans with landowners to address and correct the riparian and upland resource problems (NEPA requirements met through NRCS planning policy). a. Prepare cooperator agreements with watershed participants, prepare 6-part cooperator folders, determine landowner and site-specific project objectives, inventory land resource, identify resource problems. 5.0 $5,000 Yes
b. Develop site-specific resource treatment alternatives, determine environmental effects of each, estimate installation and annual maintainence costs. 5.0 $5,000 Yes
c. Prepare BMP specific designs and BMP management plans for each conservation plan, obtain site-specific engineering, geomorphology, soils, and plant materials assistence where necessary. 5.0 $5,000 Yes
2. Evaluate west fork of Irving Creek reach to determine most feasible restoration actions a. Evaluate west fork of Irving creek and provide restoration recommendations to landowner and BLM.. 1.0 $8,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Develop conservation plans with landowners to address and correct the riparian and upland resource problems. 2004 2007 $60,000
2. Evaluate west fork of Irving Creek reach to determine most feasible restoration actions $0
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$15,000$15,000$15,000$15,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
3. Implement landowner conservation plans and watershed treatment measures a. Install livestock/wildlife water facilities (10 at $5,000 ea.) 5 $2,000 Yes
b. Install livestock/wildlife water gaps (55 at $2,500 ea.) 5 $5,500 Yes
c. Install fencing (7,000 ft at $2.0/ft.) 5 $560 Yes
d. Install fencing for buffers by CRP (197,000 ft. at $2/ft.) 5 $0 Yes
e. Install poles for buffer system by CRP (94,500 ft. at $3/ft.) 5 $0 Yes
f. Install container stock, vegetation for buffer system by CRP (97, 600 ft. at $4/ft.) 5 $0 Yes
g. Install channel vegetation (1,120 ft. at $5/ft.) 5 $224 Yes
h. Install vegetation revetments (7,500 ft. at $4/ft.) 5 $1,200 Yes
i. Install poles/bundles, vegetation (9,230 ft. at $3/ft.) 5 $1,108 Yes
j. Install clump plantings, vegetation (2,425 ft. at $10/ft.) 5 $970 Yes
k. Install in-stream barbs. (50 ea. at $1,000 ea.) 5 $2,000 Yes
l. Install toe rock (4,200 ft. at $30/ft.) 5 $5,040 Yes
m. Install rock V-weirs (50 ea. at $$1,900 ea.) 5 $3,800 Yes
n. Apply herbicide by ATV for weed eradication (5,000 acres at $50/ac.) 5 $25,000 Yes
o. Map weed areas for future eradication (10,000 acres at $10/ac.) 5 $10,000 Yes
z. Inspect BMP to ensure that installation meets NRCS standards 5 $5,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
3. Implement landowner conservation plans and watershed treatment measures 2004 2007 $229,608
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$62,402$62,402$62,402$62,402

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
4. Evaluate previously installed and applied BMPs to ensure watershed objectives are being met. a. Annually re-inspect BMPs to ensure operation and maintainence is occuring according to applicable specifications. Evaulate post-treatment effectiveness of BMPs through stream transects, riparian vegetation surveys, up-to-date photo points. Ongoing $5,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
4. Evaluate previously installed and applied BMPs to ensure watershed objectives are being met. 2004 2007 $20,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
5. Evaluate conservation plan BMP and watershed conservation treatment effectiveness on fish, wildlife and other environmental factors. a. IDEQ will conduct water quality analysis on an ongoing basis, macroinvertebrate analysis included. Ongoing $0
b. IDFG will evaluate fish populations, spawning success, and various in-stream habitat conditions (substrate, etc.) on an ongoing basis. Ongoing $0
c. Watershed photo points, representative stream morphology transects, riparian greenline reaches, and other established long-term monitoring stations will be evaluated on an ongoing basis, usually on a 3-5 year cycle. Ongoing $5,000 Yes
d. County, ISCC, & SCD will evaluate the effectiveness of weed control Ongoing $0
e. Prepare annual report for dispursment to public, BPA, agencies, etc. Ongoing $500
6. Enhance the public's awareness of the watershed approach in meeting the holistic, ecologocally based objectives a. Hold annual field tours, show-casing site-specific BMP installation and cooperation of private and state land owners/managers. Ongoing $1,500
b. Prepare annual reports and quarterly newsletters and other media for public, local, state, federal agencies, tribal, and other interests in the ongoing activities and cooperation in the watershed. Ongoing $1,500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
5. Evaluate conservation plan BMP and watershed conservation treatment effectiveness on fish, wildlife and other environmental factors. 2004 2007 $22,000
6. Enhance the public's awareness of the watershed approach in meeting the holistic, ecologocally based objectives 2004 2007 $12,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$34,000$34,000$34,000$34,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: .25 $1,500
Supplies For annual reports, field tours, newsletters, etc. $2,000
NEPA Addressed through NRCS planning policy $0
PIT tags # of tags: NA $0
Subcontractor 2.0 staff for P/D, I/C, O&M, & M&E stages $38,000
Other BMP installation (20% of total cost) $57,402
$98,902
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$98,902
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$98,902
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
NRCS Technical support, project supervision $15,000 in-kind
IASCD/ISCC Technical support $75,000 in-kind
Clark SCD Administrative, educational support $5,000 in-kind
IDEQ Monitoring support $10,000 in-kind
IDFG Monitoring support $10,000 in-kind
Clark County Weed Technical support $5,000 in-kind
BLM Technical support $15,000 cash
CRP BMP installation (riparian buffers) $1,018,570 cash
Clark County Weed Weed abatement $5,000 cash
EPA 319 program BMP installation $485,188 cash
Private landowner BMP installation $209,877 cash
Other budget explanation

Note: Cost share by agencies, landowners, etc. is projected for entire 5 year project!


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. The proposal and presentation dwell on this as a collaborative effort but are minimal regarding potential biological benefits. More specific involvement of fisheries biologists, such as at IDFG, needs to be demonstrated. More detail needs to be provided on monitoring or links to other monitoring efforts that would provide information on native fish response. Details need to be given on prioritization of sites for restoration. Is there a watershed assessment completed that specifies needed actions? What is the likelihood and what are the potential benefits of using the CRP in this area?
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Although the proposal calls for instream work (e.g., rock weirs, in stream barbs, etc.), CBFWA questions whether passive restoration techniques have been considered. CBFWA found that local fish and wildlife managers view the proposed work as a good idea but question the priority of the project. The proposed work would implement BMPs, which should already be in place in the subbasin. In addition, CBFWAF identified a lack of coordination with the Tribes.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable, but at a low priority. The CBFWA technical review comments are appropriate and insightful. It is clear that there is little innovative, especially timely, or particularly focused work proposed here. The response still shows little indication of involvement from fish biologists.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: