FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200104400
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 |
|---|---|
| 23007 Narrative | Narrative |
| Eastside Lot Data | Narrative Attachment |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| IDFG Response to High Priority project 23007 | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Conservation Easement, Baker Ranch, Salmon River East Fork |
| Proposal ID | 200104400 |
| Organization | State of Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Pat Marcuson |
| Mailing address | PO Box 1336, 97 Highway 93 North Salmon, ID 83467 |
| Phone / email | 2087566022 / pmarcuso@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Virgil Moore |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Protect riparian areas, restore stream banks & save 70 cfs in the E.F. of the Salmon through a 740 acre ranch. Conservation easement will eliminate the use of water from 7 irrigation diversions, saving $647,000 of cost of 7 fish screens and a bridge. |
| Target species | Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 43.96 | -114.52 | Salmon River East Fork |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 149 | NMFS | BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: fence labor | $64,000 |
| Fringe | 25% of labor | $16,000 |
| Supplies | Fence materials | $80,000 |
| Travel | cost sharing by IDFG | $0 |
| Indirect | cost sharing by IDFG | $1,000 |
| Capital | Conservation Easement | $1,250,000 |
| Subcontractor | Kelly Appraisers | $5,000 |
| $1,416,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $1,416,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $1,416,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| IDFG/landowner | M&E | $15,000 | in-kind |
| IDFG | administrative, support functions and legal | $40,000 | in-kind |
| IDFG | close diversions and demo.old screens and headgates | $20,000 | in-kind |
| IDWR | incorporate into River Basin Plan | $5,000 | in-kind |
| DEQ | TMDL benefit assessment | $8,000 | in-kind |
| USBR | engineering design assistance | $10,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Comment:
Implementation of this action would preclude other actions (screening and construction of a bridge). The proposal appears poorly prepared and lacks detail on several critical points. It is uncertain from the proposal, whether the saved water will stay in the stream. The proposal needs to describe the assurance of instream water rights. What are the major ecological benefits from the fence, if grazing is still allowed inside the fence? Elimination of grazing in the enclosure should be discussed in the proposal as an alternative. The cost of the fence seems high relative to other fencing projects the ISRP has reviewed. Once fencing enclosures are built they need to be maintained. Who will do the fence maintenance (this can be expensive)?Comment:
Regarding the issue of saving 70 cfs. Within the confines of current Idaho water laws, there are no assurances that saved water will remain in the stream. Diverters downstream of the proposed conservation easement have historically received sufficient amounts of water to meet their irrigation needs without de-watering the stream. The topographic and geographic nature of the East Fork drainage precludes the consumption of significant amounts of additional water downstream. Therefore, agricultural expansion within the narrow canyon is highly unlikely.Previous efforts to reduce consumptive use of water from the East Fork have been successful downstream. Two irrigation ditches downstream were eliminated and replaced with a sprinkler system. Change in land ownership is occurring with the acquisition of agricultural property by conservation groups. It is inevitable that Idaho water law will be changed to provide for more stringent control of diversions and establishment of minimum instream flows. This eventual shift in attitude and utilization of lands along the east fork will only serve to guarantee the benefits to be derived from implementation of the East Fork Conservation Easement proposal.
The conservation easement would first be negotiated for "no livestock" within the riparian fence. The general consensus of the Model Watershed technical team was that a zone grazing plan could be implemented without jeopardizing the restoration goal. The grazing plan would be a negotiable item in the agreement should the "no livestock option" threaten any agreement by the landowner.
The proposal assumed a cross-buck wooden rail fence 42 inches in height. This was felt to best accommodate wildlife common to the area while restricting livestock. It also assumes the best longevity for the area. The area is near the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and the cross buck fence would be compatible with the SNRA visual goals.
The cost of the cross-buck fence was estimated using previous experience for the Stanley area. Contractors are not locally available. We estimate the price at $4/f t or $21,000/mile times 5 miles of riparian area ($105,000), plus the zone fences if needed ($45,000), plus one timbered wet area $10,000. Hopefully this is slightly higher than needed.
The landowner would be responsible for maintenance of the fence.
The conservation easement would require the holder to allow access to Idaho Department of Fish and Game for inspection of the property but would not necessarily be open to the public.
The landowner said he would enter into an agreement but there is never any guarantee until the lawyers and other parties agree. An assessment was completed for the riparian portion of the agreement. It would require modification to include the entire ranch. The sponsors intent was that Mr. Baker would take $1 million, the fence would cost less than our projected $160,000 and some demolition would be required to remove some old dikes, headgates and old fish screens that do not meet NMFS criteria.
Comment:
23007 - Conservation easement on Baker Ranch, and 23046 - Increase instream flows to dewatered streams in the Walla Walla basin. These projects both restore in-stream flows directly. This is a high-priority action that must be linked to a Tier 3 monitoring project. (If project 23007 has other riparian restoration activities associated with it, monitoring should be coordinated with 23053 below, and associated projects.)Comment:
Fund 23007 if 23010 does not proceedComment:
This project would increase stream flows and protect riparian habitat in the East Fork of the Salmon River. The East Fork supports spawning and rearing for chinook and steelhead and is in the Upper Salmon subbasin. Some major portion of the prospectively saved 70 cfs will remain in the stream because of the relatively large volume of water and the geographic limits on downstream diversion by junior users. There are physical geographic limits on the ability of downstream irrigators to use the water. While NMFS would prefer that the "saved" water be protected in-stream by appropriate changes in Idaho water law transferring priority date with the water right, the project's merit are sufficient to proceed. The reduced diversion for irrigation will also reduce loss of migrating juveniles to ditches. The reduction in grazing will restore and protect riparian and upland habitat and the conservation easement will prevent sub-development. The easement would save money that would otherwise be used to consolidate and screen diversions, build access roads and bridges, provide flood control, and long term O&M. It appears that the owner is willing to sell the permanent easement, making this a time-limited opportunity as well.Comment: