Return to Proposal Finder FY 2001 Ongoing 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. 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
No documents associated with this request


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 2088752500
Fax 2088758704
E-mail wild@potlatch.com
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Mr. Scott Wasem, Chairman, ISWCD
 
Review Cycle FY 2001 Ongoing
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


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


Biological Outcomes of this project: 1. Increasing trend in the number, density, and percent composition of salmonid fish species. Project targets spring chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, and Westslope cutthroat trout. 2. Increasing trend in the number, quality, and diversity of fish habitat types including pools, riffles, runs, and glides. 3. Increasing canopy coverage of native riparian, wetland, and wet meadow plant communities. 4. Increased use of the river/wet meadow ecosystem by waterfowl; upland wildlife; and other aquatic-, wetland-, and riparian-dependent species.
Biological Data: 1. Pre-project reconnaissance-level survey of fisheries habitat conditions, June 1994 a. Number, length, and area of habitat units. b. Pool to riffle ratio, average residual pool depth, and pool quality. c. Percent streambank stability, vegetative cover, undercut banks, and overhanging vegetation. d. Components of instream cover. e. Dominant substrate size and cobble embeddedness. f. Summer water temperature, June-September 1994. 2. Pre-project analysis of riparian soils, vegetation, and hydrology, October 1995. 3. Fish Populations a. General Parr Monitoring/Idaho Supplementation Study databases, 1993-1999. b. Ground and aerial chinook redd counts, 1993-1999. c. Detailed fish snorkel surveys, 1999, Phases I-IV. 4. Fish Habitat a. Channel cross-section survey data, 1997-1999. b. Substrate composition and percent fines, 1997-1999. c. Summer water temperature regime, 1997-1999. d. Residual pool depths, 1994 vs. 1997, Phases I and II. e. Spawning and rearing habitat velocity, depth, substrate size, and percent fines, 1997, Phase I. f. Habitat typing - number, length, and area, 1999, Phases I-IV. g. Hydrodynamic model used to simulate velocities, depths, and hydroperiod and to predict future changes. 5. Riparian/Meadow Plant Communities a. Planting success transects, 1998-1999, Phases I-II. b. Erosion control seeding success transects, 1997-1998, Phases I-II. c. Riparian and greenline composition transects for canopy coverage, 1997-1998, Phases I-II. d. Photopoints, 1997-1999. e. Browsing impacts on woody shrub growth inside vs. outside wildlife exclosures, 1998, Phase I. f. Ground and surface water elevations, 1998-1999. g. Hydroperiod modeling, 1994-1999. 6. Wildlife Habitat a. Habitat Evaluation Procedure, 1997, Phase I baseline. b. Bird survey transects, 1996-1999.


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 a. Collaborative purchase of one land parcel in the Lower Red River Meadow.
b. Property deeded to IDFG in an interagency MOA between IDFG and BPA to manage property as the Red River Wildlife Management Area for habitat restoration and fish and wildlife benefits.
1994 a. Surveys of existing conditions and research of historical conditions.
b. Planning and project vision discussions with interagency and tribal Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
c. TAC consensus on habitat restoration design philosophy.
1995 a. NEPA assessment.
b. Design criteria established and restoration options analyzed.
c. Conceptual restoration designs completed for Phases I and II.
1996 a. Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase I and permits obtained.
b. On the ground restoration work in Phase I implemented; stream channel length increased by approximately 1,100 feet, sinuosity increased from 1.7 to 1.9, and gradient decreased from 0.24 to 0.22 percent.
c. Five rock grade control structures placed to raise low flow water surface elevations and create pool/riffle habitat.
1997 a. Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase II and permits obtained.
b. On the ground restoration work in Phase II implemented; stream channel length increased by an additional 1,960 feet, sinuosity increased from 1.9 to 2.3, and gradient decreased from 0.22 to 0.18 percent.
c. Disturbed construction areas reseeded with a native seed mix and 31,500 native woody and herbaceous plants installed in Phases I and II.
d. First year of comprehensive implementation and effectiveness monitoring initiated.
e. Fish habitat area increased by approximately 35 percent on the entire RRWMA and by nearly 95 percent in Phases I and II alone; both number of pool/riffle sequences and residual pool depths increased by approximately 60 percent.
f. Eight wildlife exclosures built in Phase I and planted with native woody plant species.
1998 a. Topographic surveying, watershed data collection, computer-modeling, and monitoring data used to complete preliminary conceptual designs for Phases III and IV.
b. Revegetation completed in Phase II for a total of 46,200 plantings in Phases I and II; three wildlife exclosures built in Phase II and planted with native woody plant species.
c. Turbidity control test completed to improve best management practices.
d. Second year of implementation and effectiveness monitoring performed; monitoring and surveying stations expanded to collect baseline information in Phases III and IV.
e. Average first-year survival rate of all herbaceous and woody riparian plantings equaled 83 percent.
f. Monitoring results analyzed and compiled in Draft 1997 Monitoring Report.
1999 a. Channel cross-section dimensions refined, using monitoring results and additional stream discharge data, to reflect a more accurate estimate of dynamic equilibrium and dominant flow.
b. Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase III and permits obtained.
c. On the ground restoration work in Phase III and enhancement work in Phase II implemented; stream channel length increased by an additional 395 feet and additional plantings, pointbar reshaping, and bioengineered streambank features installed.
d. Disturbed construction areas reseeded with a native seed mix and 18,775 native woody and herbaceous plants installed in Phase III for a total of 64,975 plantings in Phases I-III.
e. Third year of implementation and effectiveness monitoring performed; preliminary 1998 monitoring data compiled in Draft 1998 Monitoring Report.
f. 1996-97 Biennial Report completed.
g. Preliminary planning initiated for Phase IV, including channel alignment alternative analysis.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Prepare conceptual restoration design. a. Perform detailed topographic and wetland survey. 6 years: Task performed for each project phase. One phase is constructed each year. Phases V-X yet to be completed in the Lower Meadow. $ 17,000 x
b. Use monitoring results, current watershed data, and hydrodynamic model to refine design criteria and select best alternative for designated project objectives. same as above $ 7,750  
c. Prepare informational materials. same as above $ 8,000  
d. Conduct meetings to obtain approval from Technical Advisory Committee, landowners, and other affected parties. same as above $ 7,500  
2. Obtain permits and agency approvals. a. Submit stream alteration permit to US Army Corps of Engineers and Idaho Department of Water Resources. same as above $ 5,500  
b. Consult as necessary for ESA species and ensure compliance with original NEPA. same as above $ 5,500  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 55,000


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Restore natural river channel characteristics and floodplain function. a. Secure conservation easements. 3-5 years: Three properties in the lower meadow. $100,000  
b. Complete final engineering documents. 6 years: Task performed for each project phase. One phase is constructed each year. Phases V-X yet to be completed in the Lower Meadow. $ 15,000 x
c. Provide on-site construction planning, layout and staking, engineering support, and field direction. same as above $ 30,000 x
d. Procure construction materials and supplies. same as above $ 20,000  
e. Construct new channel cross-section and alignment. same as above $ 70,000 x
f. Install restoration features including bioengineered bank treatments and grade control structures. same as above $ 75,000 x
g. Provide on-site construction communications. same as above $ 7,500  
h. Supervise and manage restoration activities. same as above $ 27,000  
2. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities. a. Collect seed and willow poles and grow plant material. same as above $ 46,000 x
b. Plant seedlings and willow poles. same as above $ 31,000 x
c. Install erosion control fabric and seed. same as above $ 25,000 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$430,000 $430,000 $440,000 $420,000


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Preserve investment in project. a. Management and/or replant vegetation as necessary. 20+ years: Long-term task to protect investment. $ 2,000 x
b. Maintain access roads as necessary. same as above $ 1,000 x
c. Perform any adaptive management actions identified by the monitoring program and approved by the TAC. same as above $ 2,000 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$ 8,000 $ 9,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,000


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Implementation Monitoring: Ensure restoration work is implemented as designed and approved by TAC and that water quality standards and permit conditions are upheld. a. Collect short-term monitoring data including as built channel survey, construction-related turbidity and sediment load, qualitative TAC field reviews, and erosion and planting success transects. 6 years: Task performed for each project phase. One phase is constructed each year. Phases V-X yet to be completed in the Lower Meadow. $ 18,000 x
b. Compile, analyze, and report short-term monitoring data. same as above $ 13,750  
c. Use monitoring results with adaptive management process to improve future designs and construction procedures. same as above $ 3,500  
2. Effectiveness Monitoring: Evaluate the performance of restoration work to stabilize the stream channel, restore floodplain function, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and reestablish native riparian and wet meadow plant communities. a. Collect long-term monitoring data to measure sediment balance, bank erosion, substrate, water temperature, ground and surface water elevations, riparian plant composition, fish populations, fish and wildlife habitat quality, and floodplain function. 15+ years: Long-term commitment to document the success of restoration activities in meeting established performance criteria. $ 15,000 x
b. Compile, analyze, and report long-term monitoring data. same as above $ 11,000  
c. Use monitoring results with adaptive management process to improve future designs and construction procedures. same as above $ 3,500  
d. Summarize successes and lessons learned to provide guidelines for similar projects in the region. same as above $ 2,500  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2002 FY 2003
$ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 65,000 $ 70,000


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2001 Cost
Personnel FTE: 0.3 $ 19,300
Fringe $ 5,800
Supplies $ 1,000
Travel $ 6,000
Indirect $ 2,150
NEPA NEPA completed in 1996 $ 0
Subcontractor Professional Wetland Scientist $ 4,000
Subcontractor Professional Engineer $ 3,000
Subcontractor Professional Surveyor $ 10,000
Personnel FTE: 0.3 $ 20,300
Fringe $ 6,100
Supplies $ 20,000
Travel $ 6,000
Indirect $ 2,100
Capital Conservation easement $100,000
Subcontractor Professional Engineer $ 45,000
Subcontractor Construction Contractor $145,000
Subcontractor Revegetation Specialist $102,000
Subcontractor Revegetation Specialist $ 2,000
Subcontractor Construction Contractor $ 3,000
Personnel FTE: 0.4 $ 23,700
Fringe $ 7,100
Travel $ 1,000
Indirect $ 2,450
Subcontractor Fisheries Monitoring Consultant $ 8,000
Subcontractor Professional Surveyor $ 5,000
Subcontractor Water Quality Monitoring Consultant $ 14,000
Subcontractor Revegetation Monitoring Consultant $ 6,000
Total Itemized Budget $570,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 project cost $570,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2001 budget request $570,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 $570,000
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

n/a


Reason for change in scope

n/a


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2002 2003 2004 2005
Planning and design $ 50,000 $ 55,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Construction/implementation $440,000 $420,000 $430,000 $430,000
Operations and maintenance $ 6,000 $ 7,000 $ 8,000 $ 9,000
Monitoring and evaluation $ 65,000 $ 70,000 $ 65,000 $ 65,000
Total Outyear Budgets $561,000 $552,000 $553,000 $554,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Reviews and Recommendations

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

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: no
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
2001
$570,000
Comment:
There is no change in scope or budget. The funding in FY 2000 was reduced due to budget limitations within the Idaho SRT.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
2001
$453,500
Comment:
Rationale: Budget increase inappropriate in this review.

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