FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 200713700: Open Channels

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 12, 2006 Finalized mitch felchle

Proposal Type: New
Proposal Number: 200713700
Proposal Name: Open Channels
Agency, Institution or Organization: Friends of the Teton River
Short Description: Open Channels has 3 elements: 1 Removing fish barriers to improve connectivity of tributary headwaters to the River 2 Improving flow conditions in tributaries during critical YCT reproduction 3 Stream bank restoration, improved habitat & less sedimentatn
Information Transfer: As part of FTR’s ongoing operations plan, FTR will monitor and evaluate results on Trail Creek, catalog replicable results and apply them to other tributaries with similar challenges and identify opportunities on other tributaries to address their problems under the Open Channels methodology
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
mitch felchle Friends of the Teton River P.O. Box 768
Driggs, ID 83422
Ph: 208-354-3871
Fax: 208-354-3873
Email: mitch@tetonwater.org
Form Submitter I am the Development Director for Friends of the Teton River
All Assigned Contacts
mitch felchle Friends of the Teton River P.O. Box 768
Driggs, ID 83422
Ph: 208-354-3871
Fax: 208-354-3873
Email: mitch@tetonwater.org
Form Submitter
I am the Development Director for Friends of the Teton River

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Upper Snake ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Snake Headwaters ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
43.5651 -111.0696 Trail Creek Enter project or location description here Teton, Idaho Snake Upper Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Yellowstone Cutthroat

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
[Funding Source left blank] [no entry] FTR has conducted extensive research on YCT in the upper Teton Watershed, including: 1) Detailed hydrologic analyses of the valley (including two groundwater studies, and a surface water - groundwater study in the context of hydrologic alteration); 2) Study of the distribution and abundance of juvenile YCT, recruitment bottlenecks, and spawning distribution; 3) 2005 study of barriers to fish passage and entrainment hazards in Teton River tributaries; and 4) 2005 study of trout populations in the headwater tributary streams to the Teton River.
[Funding Source left blank] [no entry] [Relationship field left blank]
[Funding Source left blank] [no entry] YCT research [Relationship field left blank]

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
YCT Objective—To increase the reproductive success of YCT on Trail Creek by improvements in connectivity to the Teton River, improving flow conditions during critical YCT reproductive periods and stream bank restoration and revegetation. Upper Snake F. Seasonal water needs, H. Maintain flows, I. Habitat alternation 3-6, 3-8

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Upland Erosion and Sedimentation Control Stream bank restoration E. Restore approximately 1500 linear feet of degraded streambank in the vicinity of the town of Victor, Idaho. Work will focus on stabilization efforts designed to slow bank erosion, capture sediment, foster willow growth, and provide fish habitat. By reducing the erosion of banks and stabilizing them, downstream spawning habitat will be restored by slowing the sedimentation which tends to plug interstitial spaces in spawning gravels. 1/1/2007 12/31/2008 $200,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Develop and Negotiate Water Right Transaction Irrigation management plan A. Evaluate each of the 10 irrigation diversions on Trail Creek and tributaries. Identify water rights holders, diversion flows and dates of use. Produce a GIS map of each diversion showing its associated canal network and individual water rights. B. Identify amounts of water that can be returned to the stream in key locations and at key times; conduct meetings with Trail Creek Sprinkler Irrigation Company to review options and discuss feasibility. C. Work to reach agreements on irrigation management strategies designed to restore flows in Trail Creek from the mountains to the Teton River during critical YCT lifecycle periods, and prepare irrigation management plan. D. Work with the Trail Creek Sprinkler Irrigation Company to implement the management plan. 1/1/2007 12/31/2008 $100,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel [blank] $40,000 $40,000 $ 0
Supplies Restoration $60,000 $60,000 $ 0
Other water right transactions $50,000 $50,000 $ 0
Totals $150,000 $150,000 $ 0

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$300,000
Total Work Element budget$300,000

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
athur schultz foundation grant $7,500 $7,500 $ 0 Cash Under Review
Idaho Fish & Game staff $100,000 $10,000 $ 0 In-Kind Under Development
idaho state U staff $3,000 $3,000 $ 0 In-Kind Under Development
Landowners Contributions $5,000 $5,000 $ 0 Cash Under Development
On the Rocks Restoration material $5,000 $5,000 $ 0 In-Kind Under Development
snake river cutthroats grant $2,000 $2,000 $ 0 Cash Confirmed
trout unlimited grants $3,000 $3,000 $ 0 Cash Under Development
Totals $125,500 $35,500 $ 0

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$ 0 $ 0 Not capable of estimation toady
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
 
Termination Date Comments
121/31/2008 End of Phase 1 of Open Channels
 
Final Deliverables
Improvements in place on Trail Creek to rebuild viable native trout and increase trout population in Teton River

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


BPA's in lieu Funding Review of new project proposals (August 3, 2006) [Download letter and table]

BPA's in lieu Rating: 2.2
Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 65%
Status of Cost Share: Under Dev.
Notes: Multiple restoration activities; multiple other entities potentially authorized/required


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$150,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$150,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$300,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments: Address ISRP concerns during contracting.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$150,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$150,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$300,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: Address ISRP concerns during contracting.

Local or MSRT Comments: No change to proposed budget


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable in part
Comments: The response provides a more complete justification for the original request, including details of appropriate collaboration with Idaho Fish and Game and an irrigation company, among partners. More monitoring has been explained, including that to be done by Idaho Fish and Game. The sponsors have addressed questions about expected fish benefits, the quantity of streamflow (cfs) needed to restore connectivity, and available resources.

The portion of the proposal to develop/negotiate water right transactions is fundable. It is clearly described, preceded by strong preliminary study, and has a very high potential for benefiting native salmonids. Flow restoration in tributaries and removal of barriers to fish migration are justified. The ISRP recognizes the difficulties involved in formalizing water transfers in this area at this time, but encourages the sponsors to keep this future possibility in mind (see Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program criteria).

It is not clear that streambank and habitat restoration as presently planned will be the most effective strategy to benefit Yellowstone cutthroat trout after flow restoration. Two-thirds of the cost of the work proposed is for restoring a section of the bank of Trail Creek. Unfortunately the "hard" approach proposed (rock "stabilization" and structure placement) is expensive and subject to failure. In addition, details were lacking and neither the proposal nor response provides enough material for thorough review of this project component at this time. Sponsors are strongly encouraged to fully explore softer bioengineering and passive restoration techniques. Habitat restoration design can be funded at this point, but not implementation. Monitoring results of the current Trail Creek restoration work described in the response will be useful in developing plans for the segment currently proposed.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: The exclusive focus of this proposal is on Yellowstone cutthroat trout, but other components of the community need to be taken into consideration including food sources. The sponsors take a habitat-based approach, and it is not clear what the fish benefits would be. Specifically, the actions proposed for the Yellowstone cutthroat trout would also benefit brook trout. So is there an overall benefit to the Yellowstone cutthroat trout? Reviewers suggest that consideration of fish populations be included, and collaboration with fish-centric groups like Idaho Fish and Game is needed for, among other things, effective M&E.

The pilot habitat project is not adequately justified in terms of fish benefits. This area of the watershed has a long history of being de-watered and populated by non-natives. The portion of the project dealing with irrigation management strategy seems valuable. What more would this funding add to outcome of Idaho Department of Water Resources contract to develop an irrigation management plan? Irrigation planning methods seem reasonable, but what types of changes are envisioned that would provide the needed water? And what are the water rights implications of these? How many cfs are needed to restore flow and connectivity?

The restoration proposal might be worthwhile, and the problem identification sounds reasonable. However, a response is needed on several questions related to the lack of an accurate description of where the restoration area is and how it functions in the larger landscape. How much stream habitat is degraded? Why is Trail Creek given highest priority for a pilot habitat restoration effort? No information was given on fish populations, and no specific information was provided regarding limiting factors. What gains in fish populations could be expected after project completion? How much sediment is being produced by damaged banks? Are these actions alone sufficient given the trout problem? Are there conditions up- or down-stream that might negate improvements? Who owns the land to be restored, and how will the improvements be maintained? Will the water saved be reserved for instream use? See the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program’s criteria. Without such detail, it is difficult to assess suitability of the ("widely accepted") riparian restoration techniques selected. In-stream structures often do more harm than good and apparently no independent engineering assessment or review is planned. Permit reviews would not be sufficient in this regard.

Most sources of technical and scientific background are in-house. The proposers note the subbasin plan and cite its objectives. It seems there are only Friends of Teton River projects and general partnerships, except for the contract with IDWR. The Irrigation District is not mentioned. Personnel appear experienced and qualified, but their role and degree of involvement is not explicit and the personnel section of budget is modest for this stable of personnel. Major equipment will be needed. Will this be contracted? Information transfer is not explicit, nor are any data issues addressed.

Effectiveness monitoring is needed, and project objectives would need to be more specific to develop a sound monitoring and evaluation plan. It seems all that will be monitored is implementation of the irrigation plan. No plan to monitor fish response is proposed, nor any parameters associated with fish population declines. A response should better describe their monitoring and evaluation plans.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.