Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199303501

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 Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat Within the Red River Watershed
BPA Project Proposal Number 199303501
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District
Business acronym (if appropriate) ISWCD
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Mr. Denny Dawes
Mailing Address 1025 East Hatter Creek Road
City, State, Zip Princeton, ID 83857
Phone 2088751246
Fax 2088758704
E-mail wild@potlatch.com
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Mountain Snake
Subbasin Clearwater
 
Short Description Restore physical and biological processes to create a self-sustaining river/meadow ecosystem using a holistic approach and adaptive management principles to enhance fish, riparian, and wildlife habitat and water quality within the Red River watershed.
Target Species spring chinook salmon, steelhead trout, 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: 4.1 (Salmon and Steelhead Runs), 7.6 (Habitat Goal, Policies, and Objectives), 7.7 (Cooperation with Private Land Owners), 7.8E (Conservation Easements), 10.2 (Watershed Integration of Resident Fish), 11.1(Wildlife Mitigation)
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: Not directly related to Biol. Op. Nos., but Red River drainage includes critical habitat for steelhead trout and bull trout, recently listed under the ESA
Other Planning Document References This watershed project is consistent with the goals of the 1) Wy-Kan-Ush-Me Wa-KushWit; 2) Nez Perce National Forest Plan (1987); 3) South Fork Clearwater River Landscape Assessment (1998); 4) Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Plan (1992); 5) Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Anadromous Fish Management Plan, Resident Fish Management Plan, Elk Management Species Plan, and Nongame Species Plan; 6) ISWCD Five Year Plan; 7) Clearwater Focus Watershed; 8) Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority’s (CBFWA) Integrated System Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Production in the Columbia River Basin (1991); 9) Clearwater River Subbasin: Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan (Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho Fish and Game, 1990); and 10) Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (1994).


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 Collaborative purchase of one land parcel in the lower Red River meadow; property deeded over to IDFG in an interagency MOA between IDFG and BPA to manage property as a Wildlife Management Area for habitat restoration and fish and wildlife benefits.
1994 Surveys of existing conditions; research of historical conditions; planning and project vision discussions with interagency and tribal technical advisory committee; consensus on habitat restoration design philosophy; and budget development.
1995 NEPA assessment; analysis of restoration options; design criteria established and conceptual restoration designs completed for Phases I and II.
1996 Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase I and permits obtained; implementation of Phase I of restoration design; began conceptual designs and planning for Phase II
1997 Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase II and permits obtained; Phase II of restoration design implemented; revegetation completed in Phase I; implementation and post-construction monitoring completed; initial planning for Phase III.
1998 Surveying, data collection, computer-modeling and preliminary conceptual designs completed for Phases III and IV; revegetation completed for Phase II; turbidity test completed; post-construction monitoring performed; 1997 monitoring report completed.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Restore natural river channel shape, meander pattern, and substrate conditions to enhance the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat for chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, and other anadromous and resident fish species. a. Collect current watershed data and re-evaluate watershed conditions and engineering design criteria and methods based on monitoring data analyses and adaptive management principles.
1. b. Secure conservation easements, long-term land management agreements, and/or riparian fencing, with willing private landowners in the lower Red River meadow and other sites within the Red River watershed.
1. c. Perform topographic survey of future sites within watershed.
1. d. Input current and historic watershed, hydrologic, and geomorphic data into computer design model.
1. e. Develop preliminary conceptual restoration design alternatives for review with willing landowner, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and ISWCD.
1. f. Upon landowner, TAC, and ISWCD agreement, complete final conceptual restoration design and detailed engineering drawings and specifications.
1. g. Develop and submit stream alteration permit application package.
1. h. Upon successful easement negotiations, install restoration features to complete the transition between the Red River Wildlife Management Area (RRWMA) and the adjacent downstream property.
2. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat, stabilize streambanks, and reduce water temperature. a. Re-evaluate revegetation design criteria based on monitoring data analyses and adaptive management principles.
2. b. Develop preliminary conceptual revegetation design alternatives and review with willing landowner, TAC, and ISWCD.
2. c. Upon landowner, TAC, and ISWCD agreement, complete final revegetation design, detailed drawings and specifications.
2. d. Collect native seed on-site for future plantings.
2. e. Collect and store dormant willow poles.
2. f. Provide and install container seedlings and willow poles.
2. g. Irrigate container seedlings and willow poles.
2. h. Build exclosures and plant with woody seedlings and willow poles.
3. Measure and document progress in satisfying short- and long-term project goals, objectives, and outcomes a. Modify or refine monitoring evaluation criteria, parameters, or methodology based on monitoring data analyses and adaptive management principles.
3. b. Monitor baseline and construction-related turbidity and suspended sediment loads.
3. c. Measure plant survival rates.
3. d. Complete Technical Advisory Committee field reviews.
3. e. Measure stream channel response
3. f. Measure and map changes in quantity and quality of fish microhabitats.
3. g. Evaluate fish populations through snorkel and redd counts.
3. h. Measure change in water temperature regime.
3. i. Measure changes in ground- and surface water elevations.
3. j. Measure change in greenline and riparian vegetation composition.
3. k. Document photopoints for changes in channel stability and riparian vegetation.
3. l. Complete Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP).
3. m. Complete an annual monitoring report.
4. Promote public and agency awareness and scientific knowledge of watershed restoration principles and techniques a. Re-evaluate and update public information plan with Technical Advisory Committee and project sponsor.
4. b. Add to image library and continue public presentations of educational video and slide shows.
4. c. Maintain underwater and surveillance cameras.
4. d. Maintain and update web site at regular intervals.
4. e. Publish articles in local newspapers, natural resource-related magazines, and scientific journals.
4. f. Update informational brochure and FACT sheet and continue field season newsletters.
4. g. Maintain and update GIS database.
4. h. Conduct on-site field tours.
4. i. Implement volunteer monitoring and stewardship activities.
4. j. Continue to provide outdoor classroom opportunities for students of all ages.
4. k. Provide annual report and on-site computer resources for educational and technology transfer of watershed/river restoration techniques.
5. Manage and communicate project activities to efficiently accomplish project goals. a. Assist project sponsor with personnel contract preparation.
5. b. Direct restoration activities and develop project, equipment, and personnel time schedules.
5. c. Assist project sponsor with permit application submittal.
5. d. Update and distribute communication plans.
5. e. Coordinate and facilitate Technical Advisory Committee meetings.
5. f. Coordinate project activities with project sponsor, landowners, Tribes, agencies, and consultants.
5. g. Share information with adjacent landowners and other public and private interests.
5. h. Provide on-site construction supervision, communications, and administrative support.
5. i. Prepare quarterly and annual reports.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 03/01/00 02/01/01 a) Low-flow water surface levels are maintained < 30 inches from top of bank, providing soil moisture conditions able to sustain native riparian plant communities. a) Negotiate and secure easement with willing landowners of future restoration site in preparation for Phase V restoration work. 55.0%
1 b) Pool/riffle sequence spacing equals 5 – 7 channel widths consistent with conditions in stable channels of this stream type (Leopold et al., 1995). b) Based on easement negotiations, construct transition reach to adjacent property, completing restoration work in Phases I-IV, (the first of four properties in the lower meadow).  
1 c) The number of pool/riffle sequences will increase by 50 – 150% from baseline.  
1 d) Area available for fish habitat will increased by 50 – 75% from baseline.  
1 e) Residual pool depths will increase by 50 – 75% from baseline.  
1 f) Spawning and rearing micro-habitat characteristics will meet optimum condition ranges for salmonids (NMFS, 1996; Bjornn and Reiser, 1991 – see Sect. 8f for specific criteria).  
1 g) Long-term trend of increasing numbers of chinook salmon spawning in Red River, a change in species composition to a larger percentage of chinook, steelhead, and bull trout juveniles, and increased survival rates of fry and juveniles.  
2 03/01/00 02/01/01 a) Maintain first year plant survival rates > 50%. Complete revegetation in Phases III and IV. 14.0%
2 b) Long-term trend in decreasing summer water temperatures toward < 64.9 degrees F, optimal for juvenile chinook salmon rearing (ISG, 1996).  
2 c) Long-term trend of increasing coverage and density of riparian and greenline vegetation toward “dominant” status, indicating an evolution toward potential natural communities.  
2 Long-term trend in establishment of overhanging vegetation and undercut banks on > 75% of channel length.  
2 a) Long-term trend of bank stability to > 80%.  
3 03/01/00 02/01/01 Parameters measured specified under Obj. 1 and 2 above. Complete 4th year of post-construction monitoring data collection, analysis, and adaptive management evaluation. 11.0%
4 03/01/00 02/01/01 N/A – education/public outreach obj. Implement local volunteer monitoring and stewardship program. 9.0%
5 03/01/00 02/01/01 N/A – management and communication obj. Complete all pertinent reports and manage and communicate project activities to achieve annual goals/objectives in a timely and cost-effective manner. 11.0%
5 *Note: The majority of our monitoring parameters are physical measurements directly related to the development of high quality salmonid spawning and rearing habitat.  


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel $126,380
Fringe $ 44,233
Supplies $ 32,192
Operating $ 5,000
Capital Easements to protect investment and restore critical fish and wildlife habitat $211,424
Construction $104,889
Travel $ 22,470
Indirect $ 3,412
Total Itemized Budget $550,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $550,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $550,000
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
In-Kind contributions provided by UI and other organizations (see Sections 8c. & 10). $ 0 unknown
Several cost share programs planned once easements have been established on privately owned land parcels. $ 0 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $570,000 $560,000 $550,000 $ 55,000
Total Outyear Budgets $570,000 $560,000 $550,000 $ 55,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Extreme weather causing saturated soils or high flow conditions, extended easement negotiations, delay in approval of the preliminary design, extreme natural event damaging previously constructed channel features, injury/death of consultant(s)


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Ackers, P., 1993. Stage-discharge functions for two stage channels: the impact of new research. Journal, IWEM, Vol. 7, February. No
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. W.R. Meehan, (ed.) American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. No
Baer, W. H., T. K. Wadsworth, K. Clarkin, and K. Anderson. 1990. South Fork Clearwater River habitat enhancement: Crooked and Red Rivers. U.S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration. Division of Fish and Wildlife. Annual Report. No
Barinaga, M., 1996. A recipe for river recovery? Science. Vol. 273. September 20. No
Bonneville Power Administration and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Memorandum of Interagency Agreement: Acquisition and Management of Little Ponderosa Ranch, Elk City, ID. No
Bonneville Power Administration. 1996. Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project environmental assessment. DOE No. 1027. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, OR. No
Brunsfeld, S.J., D.G. Dawes, S. McGeehan, and D.G. Ogle. 1996. An analysis of riparian soils, vegetation, and revegetation options at Red River. D.G. Dawes (ed.) Report to Pocket Water, Inc., Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and BPA. No
Cagney, J. 1993. Greenline riparian-wetland management. Riparian area management. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1737-8. U.S. Department of the Interior. No
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1991. Integrated System Plan for Salmon and Steelhead Production in the Columbia River Basin. Columbia Basin System Planning. Report 91-16. Portland, OR. No
Falconer, R.A., P. Goodwin, and R.G.S. Matthew. 1989. Hydraulic and environmental modeling of coastal, estuarine, and river waters. Gower Technical Press. No
Falconer, R.A. and P. Goodwin, (eds.). 1994. Wetland management. Thomas Telford, London. No
Danish Hydraulic Institute. 1996. Reference manual and user manual for MIKE-11 River Model. Copenhagen. No
Dister, E., D. Gomer, P. Obdrlik, P. Petermann, and E. Schneider. 1990. Water management and ecological perspectives of the Upper Rhine’s floodplains. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 5:1-15. No
Havno, K. and P. Goodwin. 1995. Towards an integrated approach for hydrologic, geomorphic and ecologic understanding of river corridors. Discussion Paper in Seminar 2: Hydraulic Modeling of Ecological Criteria. XXVI IAHR Congress, London. No
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. 1996. Rules governing Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements. Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Boise, ID. No
Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District. 1995. Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project FY 1995 Budget Proposal. Grangeville, ID. No
Independent Scientific Group. 1996. Return to the river: Restoration of salmonid fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem. Northwest Power Planning Council. Northwest Power Planning Council. Boise, ID. No
Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee. 1994. Sharing the challenge: Floodplain management in the 21st century – a blueprint for change. Report prepared for the Administration Floodplain Management Task Force. U.S. Government Printing Office. No
Larsen, E.W., 1995. Mechanics and modeling of river meander migration. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. No
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller, 1995. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. No
LRK Communications, Pocket Water, Inc., University of Idaho, and Wildlife Habitat Institute. 1998a. Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project FY 1998 Work Statement. Prepared for BPA and Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation. No
LRK Communications, Pocket Water, Inc., University of Idaho, and Wildlife Habitat Institute. 1998b. 1996-97 Biennial Report: Lower Red River Meadow Restoration. Working draft in preparation for BPA and Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation. No
LRK Communications, Pocket Water, Inc., University of Idaho, and Wildlife Habitat Institute. 1998c. Lower Red River Meadow Restoration: A case study. Presentation/Abstract, Society for Ecological Restoration, NW Chap. Annual Conference. Oct. Tacoma, WA. No
Luttrell, C. 1995. Archaeological and historical services, Eastern Washington University cultural resource short report form. Unpublished report from the cultural resource field survey on the RRWMA. Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA. No
Napa River Community Coalition. 1996. Flood management plan for the Napa River, Napa. Napa Valley Economic Development Corporation and Napa County Department of Public Works, CA. No
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Making endangered species act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. National Marine Fisheries Environmental and Technical Division. Portland, OR. No
National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Prepared by the Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. No
Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho Department of Fish Game. 1990. Clearwater River Subbasin: Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Columbia Basin System Planning. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1987. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 1987 Final Amendment Document. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, OR. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Report 94-55. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1995. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program: Resident Fish and Wildlife Amendments. Report 95-20. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. No
Overton, C.K., S.P.Wollrab, B.C. Roberts, and M.A. Radko.1997. Fish and fish habitat standard inventory procedures handbook. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Boise, ID. Gen Tech. Rep.INT-GTR-346. No
Parker, G. and E.D, Andrews. 1986. On the time development of meander bends. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 162:139-156. No
Pocket Water, Inc. 1994a. Red River meadow fisheries habitat reconnaissance. Unpublished report. Prepared for ISWCD. Grangeville, ID. No
Pocket Water, Inc. 1994b. Temperature data collected for Red River Meadow Project. Unpublished report. Prepared for ISWCD. Grangeville, ID. No
Pocket Water, Inc. 1997. Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project: 1997 monitoring plan. Unpublished report. Boise, ID. No
Pocket Water, Inc., River Masters Engineering, KLP Consulting, and Wildlife Habitat Institute. 1997. Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project FY 1997 Work Statement. Prepared for BPA, Portland, OR and ISWCD, Grangeville, ID No
Pocket Water, Inc. 1998. Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project: 1997 Monitoring Report. Prepared for BPA, Portland, OR and ISWCD, Grangeville, ID. No
River Masters Engineering. 1995. Design criteria for Lower Red River Meadow. Unpublished report. Prepared for ISWCD. Grangeville, ID. No
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. No
Siddall, Phoebe. 1992. South Fork Clearwater River habitat enhancement, Nez Perce National Forest. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. No
USDA Forest Service. 1987. Nez Perce National Forest Plan. Nez Perce National Forest. Grangeville, ID. No
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. Technical Riparian Work Group. Intermountain Region, Ogden UT. No
USDA Forest Service and other agencies. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. Version 2.2. Portland, Oregon. Yes
Willetts, B.B., and R.I. Hardwick. 1993. Stage dependency for overbank flow in meandering channels. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs. Wat., Marit. & Energy, 101. No
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. American Geophysical Union Transactions 35:951-6. 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:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. This is not a scientifically justifiable proposal. An audit of both scientific accomplishments to date, and project expenditures should be conducted before any consideration is given to further expenditure of Program funds on this project.

Comments: This project is intended to enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the Snake River Basin. It should have proceeded based on assessments of successes or failures of similar projects elsewhere such as the Bear Valley Creek restoration project of the 1980's. If fish runs are restored to Red River, does the restored section contribute more smolts (and other plant and other species' abundances) to the outmigrant population than similar areas that were left to "heal" on their own? No such comparison seems forthcoming. The CBFWA technical evaluation includes the observations that "This watershed is still being grazed and logged. There is considerable concern about the high cost and uncertain biological effectiveness. Project proposes a major structural solution without addressing ongoing land management activities." The ISRP concludes that the project is of questionable benefit to fish and wildlife.

The sponsors argue that the Red River has the potential to be a major spring chinook and steelhead production stream, but that logging roads and mining have resulted in sediment loads that diminish the prospect. However, the proposal does not indicate why this particular reach of 4.4 miles is a bottleneck to production in the watershed. Is this a priority area for this kind of investment? This project remarkably is in its sixth year, with expenditures to date of over $1.6M. Compared with other similar channel restoration projects, the costs seem very much out of line, as a minimum a justification for the unusually high costs should have been provided. Furthermore, it is difficult to identify or assess the project's achievements to date.

The Methods description includes such statements as "The Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project uses a holistic approach …". The meaning in this context is unclear. If the habitat problem in this basin is sediment, one would hope that for $1.6M after six years, some information could have been presented comparing the sediment yield of this basin with others not having the same management history, and that an argument would be made as to how load reductions could or will be achieved. Yet, there is nothing in the proposal indicating that any real habitat improvements will result from this project.

Six years is too long for a project to continue without a comprehensive review. A visiting committee should be convened specifically to evaluate this project. In the interim, no further expenditure of Program funds can be scientifically justified


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$450,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
This watershed is still being grazed and logged. There is considerable concern about the high cost and uncertain biological effectiveness.

Project proposes a major structural solution without addressing ongoing land management activities.

Proposal is well written but exceeds the page limit.


ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed most of the ISRP questions and comments very well. In addition, the response provides new information that should have been included in the original proposal. Of particular importance is the justification for the focus on particular stream reaches. The inclusion of maps and drawings was very helpful. Reviewers note that this project is intended more to address channel stabilization goals than fish restoration goals (see also projects 9608600 and 9706000).

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$450,000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 0
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 99,570
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 99,570
Sponsor (IDFG) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page