FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33007
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
33007 Narrative | Narrative |
33007 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
33007 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Implement Best Management Practices to improve riparian habitat and upland conditions in the Medicine Lodge watershed. |
Proposal ID | 33007 |
Organization | Clark Soil Conservation District (Clark SCD) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | David F. Ferguson |
Mailing address | P. O. Box 790 Boise, ID 83701 |
Phone / email | 2083328654 / dferguso@agri.state.id.us |
Manager authorizing this project | Clark SCD Chariman, Norman Tavenner |
Review cycle | Upper Snake |
Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Closed Basin |
Short description | Enhance 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 species | Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, Rainbow Trout, Sage Grouse |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
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 agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
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 ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
98002 | Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment | Data share & coordination of monitoring activities |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
3. Implement landowner conservation plans and watershed treatment measures | 2004 | 2007 | $229,608 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$62,402 | $62,402 | $62,402 | $62,402 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
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
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated 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 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$34,000 | $34,000 | $34,000 | $34,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
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?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.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.Comment: