FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 32002

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
32002 Narrative	Narrative
32002 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
32002 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Implement Best Management Practices to improve riparian habitat and upland conditions within the Billingsley Creek watershed.
Proposal ID	32002
Organization	Gooding Soil Conservation District (Gooding 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	Bob Bolte, Chairmen, GSCD
Review cycle	Middle Snake
Province / Subbasin	Middle Snake / Snake Upper Middle
Short description	Enhance riparian habitat and reduce nonpoint source pollution within the Billingsley Creek watershed through the development and implementation of conservation plans on private lands, coordinated with state owned and managed lands within the watershed.
Target species	Redband Trout, Brown Trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		T7S, R13E, Section 32 (headwaters) down to section 11 (mouth)
42.8323	-114.9038	Billingsley Creek

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	Draft TMDL subbasin assessment provided by IDEQ
1998	Middle Snake nutrient managementplan/TMDL completed by IDEQ
1984	Watershed water quality assessment completed by IDEQ

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. Evaluate and assess waterswhed conditions to update the 1990 "Recommendation for Water Quality Improvement to the Billingsley Creek Agricultural LandUsers" and state land managers	a. Identify land management units/tracts, land owners/operators/managers, solicite participation for landuse inventory (includes upland and riparian)	0.5	$5,000	Yes
	b. General inventory of cropland areas, grazing land areas, riparian areas, and other watershed nonpoint source land areas susceptable to erosion and overutilization	1.0	$12,500	Yes
	c. Develop watershed treatment alternatives with input from local, state, federal agencies, tribal, public and other watershed interests to address upland and riparian resource problems.	0.3	$5,000	Yes
	d. Prepare, print, display, and dispurse "Recommendation" report..	0.1	$6,000
2. Develop conservation plans with landowners to address and correct the riparian and upland resource problems (NEPA addressed here through NRCS 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
	d. Develop a plan and implement appropriate measures to restore 3/4 miles of stream health to established levels within Billingsley Creek State Park.	2.0	$0
	e. Develop a plan and implement steps to stablize 20 acres of slope along Billingsley Creek within Billingsley Creek State Park to prevent erosion and stream damage.	2.0	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Evaluate and assess waterswhed conditions to update the 1990 "Recommendation for Water Quality Improvement to the Billingsley Creek Agricultural LandUsers" and state land managers			$0
2. Develop conservation plans with landowners to address and correct the riparian and upland resource problems (NEPA addressed here through NRCS policy).	2004	2007	$60,000

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 riparian fencing (total average cost $1.5/linear ft., 30,000 ft total)	5.0	$6,750	Yes
	b. Install livestock/wildlife water facilities (total average cost is $5000 ea., 10 total)	5.0	$7,500	Yes
	c. Install in-stream barbs, etc. (total average cost is $1,000/ea., 30 total)	5.0	$7,500	Yes
	d. Install riparian/channel vegetation/revetments (average total cost is $5/ft.., 20,000 feet total)	5.0	$15,000	Yes
	e. Remove or replace old culverts (average total cost is $2,500 ea., 5 total)	5.0	$1,875	Yes
	f. Install upland sediment basins (average total cost is $1,500 ea, 7 total)	5.0	$1,575	Yes
	g. Install riparian buffers (average total cost is $80/ac. 80 acres total)	5.0	$960	Yes
	h. Install livestock, wildlife crossings (average total cost is $1,800 ea., 5 total)	5.0	$1,350	Yes
	i. Install watergaps (average total cost is $2,500 ea, 5 total)	5.0	$1,875	Yes
	j. Stabilize critical, erosive areas impacting riparian conditions (average total cost $700/ac. 50 acres total)	3.0	$5,250	Yes
	k. Inspect each BMP installation or application to ensure standards and specifications are met.	5.0	$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	$134,550

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$54,635	$54,635	$54,635	$54,635

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	$3,000	Yes
	c. Watershed photo points, representative stream morphology transects, riparian greeenline 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. 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	$25,000
6. Enhance the public's awareness of the watershed approach in meeting the holistic, ecologocally based objectives	2004	2007	$15,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$11,500	$11,500	$11,500	$11,500

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 0.15 of GCSD permanent staff	$3,000
Supplies	For annual reports, field tours, newsletters, etc.	$6,500
NEPA	Addressed through NRCS planning policy	$0
PIT tags	# of tags: NA	$0
Subcontractor	1.0 staff for P/D, I/C, O&M, & M&E stages	$55,500
Other	BMP installation (75% of total cost)	$49,635
		$114,635

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$114,635
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$114,635
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, engineering, supervision	$10,000	in-kind
ISCC	Administrative, technical	$2,000	in-kind
IDFG	Technical, monitoring	$10,000	in-kind
IDEQ	Technical, monitoring	$10,000	in-kind
GSCD	Administrative, awareness	$5,000	in-kind
Landowners	Installation & operation costs	$16,545	cash

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. Ties to fisheries biologists such as at IDFG need to be more strongly specified. More detail needs to be provided on monitoring or links to other monitoring efforts that would provide information on fish response. See the programmatic section at the beginning of this report. Details need to be given on prioritization of sites for restoration. Is there a watershed assessment that specifies needed actions? Are there potential benefits of using additional CRP enrollment in this project area?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Concerns expressed relative to Proposals 32012 and 33007 also apply to this project. In addition, CBFWA found that some of the work would be performed in a State Park and question whether it should be a BPA responsibility. CBFWA also found that there is a lack of coordination with the Tribes.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. Billingsley Creek is one of the largest spring creeks in the southern Idaho-Hagerman area and because of its natural high productivity offers one of the most promising opportunities for restoration of fisheries habitat and benefits, albeit for non-native rainbow and brown trout. Billingsley Creek has suffered from long-term habitat degradation from development of agriculture and aquaculture practices, such that restoration of the primary stream corridor will be expensive and may be intractable with current approaches and smaller-scale restoration projects. Previous small-scale restoration activities have largely failed.

The response provided good indication of coordination with, and active support from, the Idaho Department of Fish & Game. Also encouraging are the signs of nascent activities to reverse a long and gradual history of man-caused change to Billingsley Creek. However, until those activities are better proven and private landowners are more involved, it remains risky to invest BPA funds here.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: