FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200105200
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restoration of Anadromous Fish Access to Hawley Creek |
| Proposal ID | 200105200 |
| Organization | State of Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Blair Kauer or Mike Donahoo |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 50 P.O. Box 51174 Lemhi, ID 83465 Idaho Falls, ID 83405 Phone (208) 528-8718 |
| Phone / email | 2087682718 / chaos@salmoninternet.com; mdonahoo@nwindenv.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Folsom, Model Watershed Project, Salmon, ID |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Reconnect Hawley Creek to the Lemhi River, reduce water temperatures, and facilitate stream channel and riparian habitat restoration for anadromous and resident species in Hawley Creek by improving irrigation methods and increasing instream flows. |
| Target species | Chinook and steelhead salmon (anadromous and resident); resident and migratory bull trout; cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.66 | -113.24 | Hawley Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
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: 1 part-time biologist for duration of projects | $45,000 |
| Fringe | included in salary | $0 |
| Supplies | included in Capital acquisition costs | $0 |
| Travel | site visits by technical and administrative people | $3,000 |
| Indirect | $1,000 | |
| Capital | pipe, pivots, materials for diversion structure and screens and bridging materials | $1,860,000 |
| Subcontractor | in-kind by McFarland Livestock Company | $250,000 |
| $2,159,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $2,159,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $2,159,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| McFarland Livestock Company | 1/2 cost of installation of pipe and pivots | $250,000 | in-kind |
| IDFG | Screens | $70,000 | in-kind |
| Model Watershed | Planning coordination | $5,000 | in-kind |
| IDWR | Assist with Basin Plan | $2,000 | in-kind |
| DEQ | TMDL benefit assistance | $4,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Hawley Creek is high in the Lemhi watershed. There is no indication of why Hawley Creek is a priority stream within the Lemhi system. The proposal fails to present stock status data on current use and potential benefits, nor does it establish the benefit to the imminent risk population. Legal assurances are not provided that the water saved will be protected for instream use. Water savings should have been presented as the net change to the entire system. What does the 4 cfs mean relative to the stream, relative to the Lemhi? The Model Watershed Group has a good track record. The cost of the irrigation system, etc. may approach the price of land acquisition. The proposal has some good aspects, which "common sense" might tell us will have benefits, but has weak justification. M&E is not adequately described.Comment:
Province review process will determine the priority of this project within the subbasin. Intends to reconnect habitat by providing additional streamflow, but the "saved" water comes with no guarantee that it will remain in the stream.Comment:
Comment:
This project would reconnect a headwater tributary to the Lemhi River, likely providing benefits to ESA-listed fish species in the Salmon River basin. Projects like this would be expected to contribute to recovery efforts identified in the FCRPS Biological Opinion and the Basinwide Recovery Strategy. NMFS reviewers concluded that this project fell short of highest priority status for 2001 because project planning design and description are not yet complete. Reviewers did not find assurances that water gains or savings would be permanently protected in-stream from future appropriation. Hawley Creek is upstream of the area covered by recent legislation that would protect flows in the lower Lemhi River. NMFS is concerned that restored or improved flows will not make it downstream to where they will be protected under the Lemhi agreement.Without the justification of this alternative over other actions, such as land acquisition, and the legal assurance that adequate instream flows would be protected, reviewers were not able to adequately assess feasibility or expected benefits. The proposal would merit a higher priority if it were part of a scientifically-based, watershed-level plan with measurable biological objectives. In order to be considered off-site mitigation, the project should be reconfigured to respond to the concerns stated here. Then it could be reconsidered as part of the Mountain Snake provincial review.
Comment: