Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199202603

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Idaho Model Watershed Administration/Implementation Support
BPA Project Proposal Number 199202603
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission
Business acronym (if appropriate) SCC
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Biff Burleigh
Mailing Address P.O. Box 83720
City, State, Zip Boise, ID 83720-0083
Phone 2083328652
Fax 2083342386
E-mail bburleig@agri.state.id.us
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Snake
Subbasin Salmon
 
Short Description Provide a basis of coordination and cooperation between local, private, state, tribal, and federal fish and land managers, land users, land owners and other affected entities to manage the biological, social and economic resources to protect, restore and
Target Species Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.6,7.7
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: ESA consultation done on a site specific project by project basis.
Other Planning Document References This project operates under the “Model Watershed Plan”, which is a watershed assessment directed specifically at the Lemhi River, Pahsimeroi River, and East Fork of the Salmon River (all within the upper Salmon sub-basin).


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1993 Stabilized 200 yards of streambank on East Fork of the Salmon River.
1993 Improved 29 irrigation diversion structures on the Lemhi River.
1994 experimental “fish flush” conducted by irrigators to allow chinook adults passage to spawning areas on Lemhi River.
1994 Big Flat Ditch siphon completed to reconnect Carmen Creek to the mainstem Salmon River.
1995 Riparian enhancement fence completed on 4.5 miles of streambank on two ranches in the Pahsimeroi and three ranches on the Lemhi River.
1995 Point of diversion transferred from the Pahsimeroi River to the Salmon River.
1995 Two diversions eliminated on Lemhi River with a combined net savings of 1,600 acre feet of water.
1995 Seven irrigation diversions consolidated into three irrigation diversions on Lemhi River.
1996 Three ranches near Leadore construct fencing and implement grazing/pasture management systems along 5.75 miles of critical stream habitat along Lemhi River.
1996 Two canals eliminated from the Salmon River through consolidation into Challis Irrigation Canal.
1996 Constructed riparian enhancement fences on two ranches in East Fork along 1.75 miles of river.
1996 Diversions EF-7 and EF-8 consolidated on East Fork.
1997 Completed L-3A diversion structure and bypass system on Lemhi River.
1997 Reset pipe on old L-5 diversion to provide off-channel rearing habitat on Lemhi River.
1997 Constructed 0.75 miles of fence and developed a grazing system for a ranch along the Lemhi River.
1997 Constructed 15 miles of fence on 8.5 miles of the upper Lemhi River along critical chinook spawning and rearing habitat.
1997 Streambank stabilization and off-channel rearing site along lower Lemhi River.
1997 Construction of 0.85 miles of fence on the lower Lemhi stream reach.
1997 Construction of 0.75 miles of fence along Pattee Creek, tributary to Lemhi River.
1997 Riparian pasture management fencing was constructed on three ranches along 3 miles of the Pahsimeroi River.
1997 Phase I of a riparian management project on the East Fork installed a series of instream bank stabilization structures.
1998 At L-8a diversion, a headgate, wasteway, and vortex weir were installed to facilitate fish passage and eliminate gravel push up dams on Lemhi River.
1998 Riparian fence along 0.90 miles of the upper Lemhi River and Texas Creek, tributary to the Lemhi.
1998 Riparian fence along 1.2 miles of Hayden Creek, tributary to the Lemhi River.
1998 Riparian fence along 1.0 mile of Eighteen mile Creek a headwater tributary of the Lemhi River.
1998 Riparian fence and grazing management system along 1.0 mile of Pahsimeroi River/Patterson Creek.
1998 Riparian fence have been started with 3 landowners along 2.8 miles of the East Fork.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9401700 Idaho Model Watershed Habitat A co-project of the Model Watershed No
Enhancement Project project which specifically addresses anadromous fish habitat No
9306200 Salmon River Anadromous Fish Passage Enhancement A co-project for the Model Watershed project area which specifically addresses physical barriers to anadromous fish passage. No
9401500 Idaho Fish Screening Improvement-O&M A related project to reduce fish mortality in irrigation diversions. No
8909800 Idaho Supplementation Studies Information Collection This project is part of ISS research which is used for monitoring and evaluating anadromous and resident stocks within the Model Watershed project area. No
9009 Restore the Salmon River, in Challis, Idaho This projects area is outside the current MWP area, however it compliments the current habitat and passage projects in the upper Salmon River basin. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Coordinate activities for fish habitat maintenance, enhancement and restoration. a. Meet regularly with SWCD boards and Advisory and Technical Committees to plan, approve and implement projects. Meet with Custer and Lemhi SWCD’s for a total of 20 times during the contract period to provide technical advice and solicit local input to ins
2. Coordinate activities that keep people involved in the Model Watershed process. b. Conduct and participate in tours and seminars to further education of local participants. Conduct three Model Watershed tours of “on the ground projects.” Meet four times with Lemhi County Riparian Conservation Group. This group has been designated as th
3. Work with groups and individuals in the Upper Salmon Basin to investigate expansion of the Model Watershed Project. c. Meet with groups in the Upper Salmon Basin to assist with work and projects. Identify other watershed groups involved in fisheries and water quality issues, promote contact and gain support to work with groups and individuals outside of Model Watershed Pr
4. Document historical development and implementation of Model Watershed Project. d. Maintain and update progress with photos and narrative on regular basis. Follow through with all aspects of project implementation to enhance fish habitat. This includes one annual and four quarterly reports.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/00 12/01/01 Model WS Assessment yes 40.0%
2 01/01/00 12/01/01 Model WS Assessment yes 30.0%
3 01/01/00 12/01/01 Model WS Assessment yes 10.0%
4 01/01/00 12/01/01 Model WS Assessment yes 20.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel Coordinator, part time office coordinator, and SCC staff support $ 69,000
Fringe Coordinator, part time office coordinator, and SCC staff support $ 23,000
Supplies Office space, equipment, supplies, vehicle lease $ 24,000
Operating Information & education $ 4,800
NEPA Covered in BPA Watershed Mgt. Program final EIS, and project NEPA checklist under project 941700 $ 0
Travel Coordinator, Office Coordinator, SCC Staff $ 9,000
Indirect 10% overhead to SCC $ 17,000
Other Advisory Committee, Soil Conservation District expenses $ 5,500
Subcontractor Hatch Box Program $ 9,600
Subcontractor T&E Species Consultation $ 2,500
Subcontractor Intern/Volunteer Assistance $ 6,000
Subcontractor GIS Assistance $ 5,000
Subcontractor Watershed Plan Update $ 10,000
Total Itemized Budget $185,400


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $185,400
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $185,400
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Landowners Planning, Labor, Contracting $ 53,100 unknown
Idaho Fish & Game Planning & Tech Support $ 25,600 unknown
BLM/US Forest Service Planning & Tech Support $ 28,700 unknown
NRCS Planning & Tech Support $ 65,800 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Total Outyear Budgets $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: No constraints exist, Model Watershed Assessment Plan contains general project design, specific tasks and draft approvals for plan completion. However, participation from landowners to install Best Management Practices to benefit the streamside vegetative cover and ultimately the fishery is always uncertain. The current perception of the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts is that if it can be designed to have benefits for the landowner as well as the fish habitat, the landowner will participate. Due to the cooperative nature of the Model Watershed Project, project evaluation can be a complicated and lengthy process. Project scope often changes with the development of consensus, perception of needs, and state and federal permit requirements. Unavailability of technical support can slow down planning needs such as biological assessments and cultural resource clearances. This evolving process makes annual budgeting a difficult task as planners and cooperators become aware of project needs. Also, with annual variation in chinook spawn timing and fish distribution, streamside projects may need to be delayed or expedited accordingly to minimize possible negative impacts to listed species. Further delays may occur to accommodate the management needs of the landowner (i.e. irrigation diversion can’t be shut down during critical irrigation periods). Other limiting factors including weather, flooding, and availability of materials can constrain the implementation of projects.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
A guide to establishing points and taking photographs to monitor watershed management projects. 1993. The Govenors Watershed Enhancement Board. Salem, OR No
Dorratcaque, D. E., 1986. Lemhi River Habitat Improvement Study. BPA contract number DE-AC79-84BP17447, project number 84-28, Portland, OR.. No
Feldhausen, S. et. al.1998. Lemhi River Sub-basin Assessment Draft Document. No
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission and Bonneville Power Administration. 1995. Model Watershed Plan for the Lemhi Pahsimeroi and East Fork of the Salmon Rivers, Idaho. DOE/BP-2772, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1994. Columbia River Basin fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
U.S. Government, Federal Register. (57 FR 14653) Listing of Snake River fall chinook and Salmon River spring/summer chinook as threatened. April 22, 1992. Washington D. C., 57:14653. No
U.S. Government, Federal Register. (59 FR 42529) Reclassification of Snake River fall chinook and Salmon River spring/summer chinook as endangered. August 18, 1994. Washington D. C., 59:42529. No
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In Review. Final Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on a performance audit of these three proposal, 9202603, 9401700, and 9306200, to determine if the results are benefiting fish and wildlife in a cost effective manner. The proposals should be consolidated into one proposal with better described methods for selecting and prioritizing restoration efforts and for monitoring and evaluation. They also need a timeline for termination.

Comments: The Lemhi River once had a chinook population, but the river dried up in drought years. The watershed program has subsequently united previously contentious parties. However reviewers are concerned about the quality of the proposal. This proposal, along with 9401700 and 9306200, list exactly the same accomplishments, since 1993. Most of the narrative portions of all three proposals are also identical. Because of this, the three proposals either need to be combined into a single proposal, or two of the three should be discontinued. There appears to be no performance accountability in any of the proposals. The project is more implementation than "watershed."

The project's history is mixed into the technical background section. Instead, that section should present the scientific basis for the project. The proposal mentions "holistic" watershed management, but doesn't describe in detail how the concept enters into its objectives or tasks. The planned "watershed plan update" ($10,000) is undefined. The proposal's literature references are inadequate. Qualifications of project personnel are inadequately described. The proposal fails to describe US Forest Service and other federal management in the watershed. Nor does it adequately describe the biological component of their monitoring and evaluation.

A "hatchbox" program is mentioned in the proposal but is not covered by any of the objectives or methods—and such a program certainly could not apply to any objective of a watershed project. Hatchbox projects, while popular with the media and public, have a record of poor success. The inclusion of a hatchbox program in this proposal, particularly without defining a rigorous plan to test and evaluate their effectiveness, is not appropriate. Reviewers suggest elimination of the hatchbox program and its $9,600 budget item (p. 8).

This proposal supports a project coordinator and office staff with $185K. While the model watershed program is a good one, and is doing important work that is gaining momentum in the community, a performance audit might result in some tightening of the program and its budget. For example, one individual (Glen Seaborg) is shown as "full time" not only on this project but also on project 9401700 and on project 9306200. Can equivalent results be accomplished with a lower level of funding?


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$185,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
BPA contracting splits the Id. Model WS effort (9202603, 9306200, 9401700)

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
The proposal is better written this year and provides more justification.

Project has been in operation since 1992 and should more fully demonstrate that it is meeting its biological objectives. Section 4 provides a good history but what are the tangible measures of success? Fishery improvements? Milestones?

Section 3 should include links to the umbrella plan for Salmon River subbasin.

Continue improving the program -level monitoring of accomplishments and results.

Coordination proposals should include a clearly developed performance plan (i.e. external and internal review of progress).

It is difficult to apply integrated technical criteria to coordination projects.

Isn't the coordinator's salary funded by another agency?


NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$185,400
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$356,458
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$356,458
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$356,458
Sponsor (ISCC/IOSC) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page