SOUTH FORK RIVER
2008
2010
STABILIZATION AND MEADOW
REHABILITATION PROPOSAL
SOUTH FORK MEADOW STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION Project Cooperators
T 32 N, R 55 E, SECTIONS 23, 24, and 25 Nevada Division of State Parks
Spring Creek Region - CWMA
SOUTH FORK STATE PARK, NEVADA
Nevada Division of Forestry
Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group
Jiggs Conservation District
Nevada Department of Wildlife
Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection
SOUTH FORK RIVER STABILIZATION AND MEADOW REHABILITATION PROPOSAL
T 32 N, R 55 E, S 4, 23, 24, & 25
Table of Contents
PROPOSAL COVER PAGE ................................................................................................................................. 2
SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 3
GOALS ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
TASKS......................................................................................................................................................... 4
PROJECT EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................... 5
MEASURES OF SUCCESS ................................................................................................................................. 5
MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 5
PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................................ 6
CONTRACT GOAT GRAZING............................................................................................................................. 7
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION TREATMENTS ....................................................................................................... 7
DRILL SEED SITE-SPECIFIC SPECIES ................................................................................................................... 7
PROJECT BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................ 7
MATCH REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................................. 7
BUDGET CATEGORIES (NDEP ONLY) ................................................................................................................ 8
DETAILED BUDGET ........................................................................................................................................ 0
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 0
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – FIGURES
APPENDIX B – PHOTOS OF PROJECT AREA
APPENDIX C – EDUCATION KIOSK DESIGN
SOUTH FORK RIVER STABILIZATION AND MEADOW REHABILITATION PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL COVER PAGE
Lead Agency: Nevada Division of State Parks
Primary Contact: Nevada Division of Forestry
Ryan S. Shane, Resource Management Officer
911 Falcon Ln.
Elko, NV 89801
Phone: 775-738-3454
E-mail: rshane@forestry.nv.gov
Project Location: Meadows located upstream and downstream of South Fork Reservoir of South Fork State
Recreation Area in Elko County, Nevada. Both meadows border the South Fork of the
Humboldt River located in the South Fork Humboldt hydrologic unit (16040103). Legal
description of the upstream meadow is T 32 N, R 55 E, S 23, 24, & 25. The downstream
meadow is located in T 32 N, R 55 E, S 4.
Project Summary: The South Fork Reservoir and the South Fork Humboldt River is experiencing increased
levels of sedimentation due to rapid erosion of streambanks upstream and downstream of
the reservoir. The goal of the project to increase water quality entering and leaving the
reservoir which eventually enters the Humboldt River (303d Impaired). Objectives include
stabilizing the streambanks and adjacent meadows along the South Fork of the Humboldt
River using scientifically proven practices. Another objective is to evaluate the functionality
of the riparian system and identify factors contributing to the health and/or degradation of
that system including water quality. One known contributor to degradation of water quality
is the infestation of noxious weeds (NRS/NAC 555) along streambanks and adjacent
meadows. Objectives also include eradicating these weeds and establishing species
known to be capable of binding soil particles, thereby stabilizing streambanks and meadow
soils under the current hydrological conditions.
Anticipated Project Start and Completion Dates: The project is anticipated to start in late spring or early
summer of 2010 and continue until at least 2014.
Fiscal Summary: The entire estimate cost of the project is $162,338 ($73,763 from NDEP)
Project Partners:
Spring Creek Region – Cooperative Weed Management Area Jim Wilkinson, Park Supervisor
Jill Wilkinson, President 353 Lower South Fork Unit 8
P.O. Box 8021 Spring Creek, NV 89815
Spring Creek, NV 89815 Phone: 775-744-2010
E-mail: springcreekweeds@yahoo.com e-mail: sfsra@wirelessbeehive.com
Nevada Department of Wildlife Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group
Connie Lee, Landowner Incentive Program Coordinator Leta Collard, Interim President
60 Youth Center Road PO BOX 1677
Elko, NV 89801 Elko, NV 89803
Phone: (775) 777-2392 Phone: (775) 738-9826
E-mail: conlee@ndow.org E-mail: collord@citlink.net
Jiggs Conservation District Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
Joe Cumming, Chairman Bergit Widegren
HC 30 Jiggs #330 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001
Spring Creek, Nevada 89815 Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: (775) 744-2677 Phone: (775) 687-9550
E-mail: jiggs5@wellsrec.net E-mail: bwidegren@ndep.nv.gov
SCOPE OF WORK
Introduction and Problem Statement
South Fork Reservoir is built upon three historic ranch complexes (Figure 1- Appendix A). In 1983, the Tomeras,
who were the last ranchers in what is now South Fork State Recreation Area, sold their property to the State of
Nevada (Design Concepts West, 1984). The upper and lower meadows at the South Fork State Recreation
Area were previously used as hay and grazing meadows. “Livestock were removed from the park in 1989”, and
the South Fork Reservoir operation adopted a "flow-in flow-out" concept, thus protecting downstream water
rights and minimizing the impacts to wildlife habitat in the Humboldt Sink. The park designated the meadow
areas a part of Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (Figure 2 – Appendix A) and have master-planned
management objectives and strategies for these areas. For example, “this area is highly threatened by noxious
weed infestations”. Additionally, “habitat improvements should focus on noxious weed control and selecting
suitable vegetation based on the capabilities of the soils.” (NDSP 2007). Today, these areas are part of a highly
prized sport fishery and general wildlife habitat complex that supports recreational wildlife viewing and
educational opportunities for Northeastern Nevada.
The project area includes 553 acres of meadows where a century of irrigation and other agricultural activities
ceased without the implementation of rehabilitation efforts (Figure 3 – Appendix A). Consequently, soil moisture
is no longer high enough to support the existing riparian and meadow species in drier portions of the meadow.
Several state noxious weeds are dominating most of the upper meadow and spreading to the areas not yet
totally infested (NDSP 2007). Noxious and invasive weeds inhabiting these areas include, leafy spurge, canada
thistle, tall whitetop, scotch/musk thistle, and cheatgrass. Edges of the meadow and stream banks are eroding
rapidly, which is contributing to the lowering the sub-irrigation potential of the meadow and is exacerbating the
meadow and streambank vegetation conversion to weed species. Weed species are contributing to the erosion
of the streambanks and sedimentation of the water in the River. In addition to the largely altered land use and
management practices that have invited weeds and changed hydrologic dynamics around the reservoir, a large
USGS monitoring station was erected in the late 1980’s (USGS 2010), which may have altered the channel
geometry enough to increase hydrologic energy of the water in the river. Increase energy will almost always
result in increased erosion of stream bed and bank materials. Additionally, a comparison from the USGS 7.5’
quadrangle and National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial photos indicates the sinuosity of the upstream
portion of the river has decreased five percent. These changes may be altering the sub-irrigation potential of the
adjacent meadows, therefore may be contributing to the overall degradation of stream stabilization and water
quality.
The project directly addresses water quality parameters in three miles of the South Fork - Humboldt River and
the South Fork Reservoir. Indirectly, water quality is addressed in the main stem of the Humboldt River since the
South Fork is a tributary to this waterbody. Non point source pollutants impacted by this project are limited to
sediment from stream bank erosion and overland flows from abandoned farmlands infested with noxious weeds.
Appendix B contains photosheets showing the kinds of streambank erosion and weed infestations contributing to
the problem. Indirectly, the project has the ability to impact the iron levels in the main stem of the Humboldt
River, which is the parameter that is causing the river to be listed as a 303d impaired waterbody (NDEP 2006).
Goals
1. Reduce to amount of sediment and sediment associated pollutants entering the South Fork Humboldt
River, South Fork Reservoir, and Humboldt River.
2. Identifying, mitigate, and remove sources of non-point pollution sources and their associated impacts on
water resources, fisheries, and wildlife habitats where and when possible and realistic opportunities are
presented.
3. Quickly establish desirable, functional, and healthy vegetation communities to minimize erosion,
sedimentation of water resources, and reinvasion of weed species.
4. Educate public park users on non-point source pollution, noxious weed management, and how
stabilization and rehabilitation efforts contribute to enhanced water quality and wildlife habitats and
conditions.
Tasks
1. Establish Baseline Information: Fully investigate the vertical and lateral stability of the South Fork
Humboldt River and associated historical changes using available data, photographs, landowner
accounts and other sources of information.
2. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment: Evaluate whether the South Fork Humboldt River is
properly functioning using the Proper Functioning Conditioning Protocol (BLM 1998), which will aid in the
identification of ecological factors contributing to the health and/or degradation of the system including
water quality. Produce a map of reaches by functional level and a prioritized list and placement of
recommended stream stabilization treatments.
3. Weed Management: Control and eradicate the noxious and invasive weeds in the riparian and meadow
areas using goat grazing, herbicides, biocontrol agents and other effective tools.
Table 1. Weed species, recommended herbicide, and application season (McAdoo et al 2005 and Prier Pers. Comm.).
Weeds Present Recommended Herbicide Season of Application
Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia Tordon 1lba.i./acre. 1/2%surfactant apply anytime
esula)
Canada Thistle (Cirsium Telar 1.5 oz/acre, 1/2%surfactant Apply when most basal leaves have emerged but
arvense) before bud stage, or apply to regrowth in the fall.
Tall Whitetop (Lepidium Telar 1oz/acre, 1/2% surfactant apply springtime thru bloom
latifolium)
Scotch or Musk Thistle Telar 1oz/acre, 1/2% surfactant, mix some Apply at the rosette stage, before bolting, in the
(Onopordum acanthium aminopyralid (milestone) [legal max is spring or in the fall prior to the soil freezing.
or Carduus nutans) 7oz/acre-]
Cheatgrass (Bromus Use 8 to 12 ounces of Plateau® per acre or Apply in the fall.
tectorum) 2 to 3 ounces a.i. per acre. A lower rate of 4
to 6 ounces may be effective in some sites.
4. Streambank Stabilization and Meadow Rehabilitation: Stabilizing the streambanks and rehabilitate
adjacent meadows along the South Fork Humboldt River using scientifically proven best management
and low impact development (EPA 2010) practices and appropriate vegetation species for site-specific
soils and hydrologic characteristics.
5. Educational Facility Installation: Install education kiosks in the upstream meadow along recreational
trails that explain, and show non-point source pollution examples, noxious weeds and weed
management activities, and how stabilization and rehabilitation practices used onsite contribute to better
water quality and wildlife habitat.
5. Monitoring, Management, and Maintenance: Monitor, manage, and maintain the treatment areas for
goal attainment and maintenance needs.
6. Final Report: Produce a final report documenting project accomplishments and results prior to
established project completion date.
PROJECT EVALUATION
Measures of Success
1. Establish Baseline Information: Compile one binder of historic river geometry, flow, and alteration
information. Include weed map with acreages by species identified. Store and maintain the binder at the
South Fork State Recreation Area.
2. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment: Perform one complete Proper Functioning Assessment of
2.5 miles of river upstream and 0.5 miles of river downstream of the reservoir. Produce one map
displaying the functioning condition reaches and identified stream stabilization project opportunities.
3. Weed Management: Eradicate 85% of the noxious weeds on all 553 acres of land in the meadows
upstream and downstream of the reservoir.
4. Streambank Stabilization and Meadow Rehabilitation: Implement three streambank stabilization
projects on river upstream of reservoir. Reestablish 300 acres of desirable species within the project
area.
5. Educational Facility Installation: Install two education kiosks in the upstream meadow along
recreational trails
6. Monitoring, Management, and Maintenance: Visit, complete monitoring forms, and take photos of the
project sites daily during construction/implementation.
7. Final Report: Produce one acceptable final report.
Monitoring and Maintenance Progr am
1. Establish Baseline Information: Compilation accuracy will be tracked through the use of citation of
sources for information. Completeness will be tracked through the comprehensive consultation of the
following agencies for the appropriate information.
Table 2. Baseline information sources and types.
Agency/Person Information Type
USGS Historical photos of South Fork River at gauging staging.
Historical adjustments in river geometry
Tomera Family Historic photos of the river
Historic land use practices and accounts of changes in environmental
conditions
NDOW Stream survey information for reaches within project area
BLM South Fork Humboldt River Interdisciplinary Management Plan and
Environmental Assessment (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, Elko Field Office, 1999)
Historic land ownership platts for meadow extent
NDSP Historic photos of the river and other historic information
2. Proper Functioning Condition Assessment: Local proposal partner representatives will attend the
PFC assessment in the field to ensure that it is effectively completed. Additionally, local partner
representatives will review the findings and final PFC reach map.
3. Weed Management: Local partner representatives will monitor the implementation of the weed spraying
operations to ensure that prescribed herbicides are applied in prescribed areas at prescribed times of
the year. Photographs, monitoring forms, and maps of the treated areas will be acquired throughout the
implementation monitoring period. Spring weed mapping and monitoring activities each year of the
project timeline will provide effectiveness monitoring information like percent desirable species cover as
well as weed species cover, density, and total acreage occupied. Maintenance monitoring will be
implemented by the South Fork State Recreation Area staff beyond project implementation to ensure
that minor weed invasions are quickly treated and ensure that they do not turn into the mega infestations
present today. Maintenance will occur annually through inspection of the treatment areas and treatment
of any detected weed infestations.
4. Streambank Stabilization and Meadow Rehabilitation: Local project partners will attend the
implementation of stream stabilization projects and document the installation process through
completion of monitoring forms and acquisition of photographs. For three years following the installation
of the stream stabilization projects, effectiveness monitoring will be used to determine if the treatments
are maintaining stabilization characteristics of the river. Monitoring forms will be completed and photos
will be acquired to document the condition and effectiveness of the improvement. Drill seeded areas will
be visited daily during the project implementation to ensure that seed placement in the soil occurs at
depths and quantities prescribed in the seeding plan. Effectiveness monitoring will occur simultaneously
with the weed mapping and monitoring activities. Percent cover of seed species and establishment
success using methods outlined in USDA-SCS Plant Materials Technical Note No. 32 (SCS 1993) will be
used to determine if re-vegetation efforts are successful. Maintenance inspections of the area will occur
annually to ensure weed occurrences are documented and treated. Additional maintenance treatments
may need to occur to ensure that plants do not become decadent and unable to resists weed invasions
and be resilient enough to recover after disturbances like fire, foot traffic or grazing acitivities.
5. Educational Improvement Installation: Local project partners will attend the installation of the
educational kiosks and complete monitoring forms and acquire photographs. Maintenance will require
annual or bi-annual visits to the kiosks to ensure construction materials maintain integrity and facilities
are not vandalized. Educational brochures will be re-stocked as needed to provide longer-term
educational opportunities for visitors.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Table 3. Project schedule by task and subtasks.
CONTIGENCY PLAN
The project contains some unpredictable circumstances that may affect the scope, timing, cost or other specific
project characteristics. These circumstances are detailed for each treatment below.
Contract Goat Grazing
The availability of contract goat grazing may be unavailable due to the scarcity of such operations in Nevada. If
goats are unavailable for contract, then the same amount of budget requirements and timing can be substituted
for implementing a prescribed fire to reduce biomass and allow direct herbicide on weed shoots.
Streambank Stabilization Treatments
The placement and implementation of streambank stabilization treatments is contingent upon the
recommendations of need from the river functioning assessment team. There are three treatments budgeted in
this proposal, so recommendations can exceed three treatments, but they must be prioritized so the top three
needed are implemented under this proposal. If less than three are recommended, then less of the budget will
be expended.
Drill Seed Site-Specific Species
Drill seeding success is a derivative of seedbed preparation, seed placement in the soil, and precipitation timing
or abundance. Seeding efforts need to occur at reasonable levels until the establishment is determined to be
successful enough to compete with weed species. Given conditions occur that do not allow desirable species
establishment, re-seeding will need to occur and budgets may need to be expanded to allow for a second
seeding. Additionally, seeding is contingent upon the implementation of goat grazing and at least some
herbicide treatments. If there are delays in opportunities for seeding treatments because contingent treatments
are delayed, then seeding treatments can be deferred until the next year, causing a decrease in budgeted costs
for the project.
PROJECT BUDGET
Match Requirements
Spending
Agency Fund Match Requirement Requirement
NDOW Heritage Funds none none
Q-1 Funds none none
NDF Conservation Education none, but recommended non-federal none
SCR- Aphis Grant 50% non-federal; cash or in-kind none
CWMA
Jiggs CD General fund 50% of materials up to $500 none
NDEP NPS Pollution 319(h) Grants 50% non-federal; cash or in-kind none
USGS General - In-kind none none
SHPO General - In-kind none none
NV-PFC General - in-kind none none
Boss General - In-kind none none
Tanks
NDSP Grounds/Maintenance none none
Budget Categories (NDEP Only)
Rate Reimbursable
Category 319(h) Funds In-Kind Match Cash Match Total Budget
Salaries
N/A N/A 0 0 0
Fringe Benefits
N/A N/A 0 0 0
Operating
N/A N/A 0 0 0
Travel
N/A N/A 0 0 0
IDC
N/A N/A 0 0 0
Equipment
Boom-less weed sprayer rental 50.00% $262 0 $525
Seed 50.00% $3,000 $7,500 $21,000
Subcontract
Goat grazing for weed removal 50.00% 0 $3,000 $6,000
streambank stabilization
implementation 50.00% 0 $0 $60,000
Detailed Budget
REFERENCES
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1998. Riparian Area Management: A user guide to assessing proper functioning
condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. TR 1737-15 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center, P.O. Box 25047, Denver, CO 80225-0047
Design Concepts West. 1984. South Fork State Recreation Area Plan. 305 North Carson #200, Carson City, NV 89701.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Polluted runoff (nonpoint source pollution): Low impact development
(LID). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch (4503T), Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Accessed 1/27/2010. http://www.epa.gov/nps/lid/
McAdoo, K., W. Johnson, R. Wilson, S. Donaldson, and J. Graham. 2005. Fighting Invasive Weeds – A Northeastern
Nevada Landowners’ Guide to Healthy Landscapes. Educational bulletin-05-02. University of Nevada Cooperative
Extension, University of Nevada, Reno MS 404, Reno, Nevada 89557.
http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ho/2005/eb0502.pdf
NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection). 2006. Nevada's Final 2006 303(d) Impaired Waters List : Attachment
1. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 901 South Stewert Street, Suite 4001
Carson City, NV 89701-5249. Accessed 1/26/10. http://ndep.nv.gov/BWQP/303DLIST.HTM
NDSP (Nevada Division of State Parks). 2007. South Fork State Recreation Area 2007 Development Plan. Contributors:
Nevada Division of State Parks, Land and Water Conservation Fund, University of Nevada Las Vegas. 901 S. Stewart St.,
5th Floor, Suite 5005, Carson City, NV. 89701-5248. Accessed 1/26/10.
http://parks.nv.gov/masterplans/SouthFork/SOUTH%20FORK%20DEVELOPMENT%20PLAN%20TEXT.pdf
Prier, J. 2010. Personal Communication: E-mail dated 2/5/2010.
SCS (USDA-Soil Conservation Service). 1993. Determining success of forage production seedings. Technical Note – Plant
Materials No. 32. U.S. Department of Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service, Reno, NV.
USGS (US Geologic Service). 2010. National Summary of available data from USGS 10319900 S FK HUMBOLDT
RV ABV TENMILE CK NR ELKO, NV. Water Information System: Web Interface, Accessed 1/27/2010.
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=10319900&agency_cd=USGS
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Figure 1. South Fork State Recreation Area Vicinity Map.
Figure 2. South Fork State Recreation Area map showing North and South Wildlife Habitat Management Areas.
Figure 3. South Fork State Recreation Area meadow stabilization project areas.
APPENDIX B
PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT AREA
Photo 1. View from the center of the south meadow at South Fork State Park over a typical amount of area that is
dominated by noxious weeds.
Photo 2. Picture showing South Fork State Park personnel implementing biocontrol measures for noxious weed control in
the south meadow during the 2009 field season. This was done in conjunction with NDF, NNSG, USFS, and the Jiggs
Conservation District.
Photo 3. View of the South Fork Humboldt River in the south meadow showing half of a 180-degree bend in the river with
a totally destabilized cut bank that is experiencing mass wasting for hundreds of feet. The remnant floodplain is invaded
with noxious weeds in the near view.
Photo 4. View of the South Fork Humboldt River in the south meadow showing multiple floodplains, possibly indicating
vertical instability. Large bushy willows on the left side are rooted in the remnant flood plain and are dying, potentially
indicating a drop in the ground water table or simple drying effect from the lack of irrigation water.
Photo 5. View of the South Fork Humboldt River outlet on the north end of the reservoir. Meadow areas and flood plains
have some thistle invasions impairing the bank stability and ecological integrity of the sites.
APPENDIX C
EDUCATION KIOSK DESIGN