FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 199303501: Red River Restoration O & M

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
January 10, 2006 Finalized Miles Benker

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199303501
Proposal Name: Red River Restoration O & M
BPA Project Manager: Sabrina Keen
Agency, Institution or Organization: Idaho Department of Fish & Game
Short Description: Restore stream channel to a functioning system by establishing riparian shrub community on Red River within Red River WMA. Restoration critical to the development of high quality fish & wildlife habitat and streambank stabilization.
Information Transfer: On line through IDFG website on WMA activities Department newsreleases for local and regional newspapers. University of Idaho Ecohydrolics Group data sharing ongoing water quality monitoring results.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Miles Benker Idaho Department of Fish & Game 3316 16th Street
Lewiston, ID. 83501
Ph: 208-799-5010
Fax: 208-799-5012
Email: mbenker@idfg.idaho.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Miles Benker Idaho Department of Fish & Game 3316 16th Street
Lewiston, ID. 83501
Ph: 208-799-5010
Fax: 208-799-5012
Email: mbenker@idfg.idaho.gov
Project Lead
Conan Chiu Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1075 Park Blvd.
Boise, Idaho 83707
Ph: (208) 287-2813
Fax: (208) 334-2148
Email: cchiu@idfg.idaho.gov
Contract Manager

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mountain Snake ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Clearwater ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
45 45 00 115 23 00 Red River Idaho County, near Elk City, ID; within the Nez Perce National Forest Idaho, Idaho Clearwater Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Steelhead Snake River ESU
All Wildlife
Bull Trout
Rocky Mountain Elk, migratory birds

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Planted 10,500 seedling shrub with Americorp crew volunteers. Logged 1,220 hours of volunteer work. Maintained past plantings, chemical scalping, tree tubes, fencing. Controlled noxious weeds on 15 acres. Site visit with COTR for field review.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199303501 Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Continuation of past restoration efforts with focus specifically on revegetative efforts to establish riparian shrub community

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
1). Increase riparian and floodplain vegetation Long-term goal is to hold bio-engineering work in place and the successful reestablishment of native riparian shrub community. Clearwater Obj. Q, U, and BB: Restore riparian functions related to temperature. Restore complexity. Restore ecosystem functions. Identify and prioritize riparian habitats for protection and restoration. 33,37,42,43
2).Increase/improve anadromous fish habitat Increase quality, quantity and diversity of instream habitat for spring chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, and resident fish species. Clearwater Obj. BB. Protect and restore an additional 300 miles of riparian habitats by 2017.Give highest priority to riparian habitats supporting spawning and rearing for anadromous and native resident salmonids. 42, 43
3. Increase Fish and Wildlife species diversity. Improvement of the quality (native plant maintenance, weed control) and quantity (increased stream LWD, maintenance of streambank stability) of fish and wildlife habitat. Clearwater Obj. U: Improve aquatic habitat diversity and complexity to levels consistent other Clearwater Plan objectives with emphasis on anadromous and fluvial stocks. 37

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
01: Plant Vegetation Plant Native Trees and Shrubs in Riparian Areas Restore stream channel to a functioning system by establishing riparian shrub community. New sites will include vegetative plantings along small perennial streams entering Red River on the RRWMA property. Goal is to provide habitat connectivity and travel corridors from initial plantings into the forested areas. Past plantings on the restored phases of the Red River have had lower than expected survival rates and slow establishment rates. The need for greater planting densities and proper planting locations is needed to assure successful establishment. 4/15/2007 9/30/2010 $137,215
Biological Objectives Metrics
* # of acres of planted: Plant 15 acres
* # of riparian miles treated: Plant 1.5 miles

02: Maintain Vegetation Maintain Previously Planted Trees/Shrubs/Poles/ Grasses Successful establishment of trees. Area surrounding plants will be tended and competing vegetation will be removed. Frequency of maintenance will depend on weather and the availability of labor/crews. 4/1/2007 9/30/2010 $34,304
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

03: Install Fence Install Fencing Around Vegetation Construct 10 enclosures installed around vegetation to prevent elk and deer browsing damage. Determine which wnclosure type performed best in the 2004-05 growing seasons. Reduce or eliminate browsing damage to seedling shrubs and trees using various types on enclosures, strategically located for greatest success. Fences may be installed both along tributary streams entering the site and the main river, as needed. We may also use fabric or plastic fences and electrical fence experimentally to determine their cost efficiency, longivity, and durability. 6/1/2007 9/30/2010 $34,304
Biological Objectives Metrics
* # of miles of fence: construct 10 enclosures

04: Remove vegetation Control Noxious Weeds Move toward removal of competitive noxious weeds throughout the project area. Removal will enhance the ability of native vegetation to establish in these areas. Broadleaf weed control will target the two main noxious weeds using ATV and backpack sprayers. This WE includes spot treatment of small stands, development of a weed location map, and treatment of approximately 15 acres annually. 5/1/2007 9/30/2010 $17,150
Biological Objectives Metrics
* # of acres treated: Treat 15 acres

05: Analyze/Interpret Data Review Previous Planting Information Project Manager reviewed technical reports on riparian vegetation composition, proper locations of plantings, and general techniques that enhance survival. Information will be generated from the September 2004 Habitat Evaluation Procedure as well as multiple years of data from BPA project 1993-035-01. Data to be evaluated includes survival rates, community composition surveys, and the extent of browsing and rodent damage. 4/1/2007 9/30/2010 $7,966
Biological Objectives Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research

06: Coordination General Project Coordination Coordinate and communicate project administrative, planning, technical, reporting, and implementation activities with BPA, TAC and regulatory agencies to ensure project goals, objectives, and expectations are being met. Activities include meetings, phone calls, and other communication tasks with crew/s and potential partners and cooperators. Includes equipment and planting material purchasing, repairs, vehicle usage and travel. 4/1/2007 9/30/2010 $11,944
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

07: Manage and Administer Projects General Management of Contract Includes assigned tasks such as providing a statement of work package for the next contract, correctly submitting invoices in a timely manner, BiOp reporting data and/or report (153) and maintaining updated SOW into Pisces program. 4/1/2007 9/30/2010 $11,946
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

08: Produce Annual Report Annual Report Report all pertinent yearly activities, successes, problems, and opportunities encountered to include photos as needed. Summarize data generated by the project, as well as discussions with Streamnet; identify appropriate data format(s) (or linkages), timing of data sharing, and describe any work needed to provide data in these formats. 3/1/2007 9/30/2010 $9,956
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

09: Produce Status Report Quarterly reports or Prepare 4 quarterly progress reports against each milestone, indicating whether the milestone is green, yellow, or red. Reports will be submitted electronically on Pisces. 4/1/2007 9/30/2010 $2,490
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

10: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation BPA NEPA Approval NEPA approval from BPA NEPA coordinator 12/1/2007 9/30/2010 $2,000
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
Supplies Costs includes vehicle rental rates, per diem, equipment purchase/repairs, seedlings, planting equipment, chemical, fertilizer, fencing materials, tree protection $56,971 $58,970 $32,000
Overhead Indirect costs at 21% $18,222 $18,642 $9,870
Personnel Hire an 8 month seasonal not FTE $22,500 $22,500 $ 0
Personnel Tech and Biologist time to M & E project $7,300 $7,300 $15,000
Totals $104,993 $107,412 $56,870

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$269,275
Total Work Element budget$269,275

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
Americorp NCCC Volunteer labor $32,400 $32,400 $ 0 In-Kind Under Development
IDFG Barracks for crew housing $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 In-Kind Confirmed
Nez Perce Tribe Project manager consultation $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 In-Kind Confirmed
USFS Use of water pumps $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $41,200 $41,200 $8,800

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$20,000 $ 0 Pulse site monitoring schedule begins
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
This project proposes a Pulse Site Monitoring Schedule for every 5 years for long term monitoring needs. Estimated at $20,000/ every 5th year.
 
Termination Date Comments
None
 
Final Deliverables
Final Report

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

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


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

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Do Not Fund
Comments:


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

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: Project not prioritized


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

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: This project adequately addresses the technical background, tie to the subbasin plan, and Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposal intends to benefit salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout as well as other fishes; waterfowl; upland wildlife; and other aquatic-, wetland-, and riparian-dependent species. The project is being used as a local and regional demonstration project for other stream restoration and watershed projects and as an outdoor educational facility for students of all ages. Phases I through IV are complete on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Red River Wildlife Management Area, one of the four land parcels in the meadow of Lower Red River. Bird populations are said to be increasing, but this may not be associated solely with this project. Elk are mentioned as a non-focal species, but there's no mention of how elk would benefit from this work (will the exclusion fencing withstand elk attention?) A response is needed on the potential benefit to elk.

A response is also needed on the following ISRP comments and concerns:

The proposers concentrate on the post-2002 history and do not present most of the project's 12-year history (some alluded to in section 1). Results in terms of fish or other animal populations are not adequately shown. These are severe deficiencies that should be remedied in the response.

Parts of monitoring and evaluation are spread within the work elements. With regard to biological M&E, subjects are listed, but the methods are not described and a statistical design is not apparent. Clarification in the response is needed of stream-miles treated. Specifically, the numbers of miles that underwent each type of treatment (and miles remaining to be treated) should be set forth clearly in a table. The table should also show the length of the pre-project channel, the length of the present (restored) channel, and the predicted length when the project is completed. A map would be helpful.

A summary is needed of results of the apparently substantial past research expenditure. The narrative seems to say that 4.5 stream-miles have been treated in some way or ways at a total 12-year project cost of $3,445,489 -- or $765,664 per stream-mile. These costs seem high, even when probable research aspects (results not presented in this history) and apparent channel lengthening (not clearly described) are taken into account. The project's recent reduction of effort seems to have been appropriate. It might be further reduced, unless the project is expanded to include up- or downstream areas and proper biological M&E.

The biggest expenditure item ($137,215) is for Objective 1, which includes planting as remedial works for low survival and slow establishment. In response, please include more information about the presumed failure of the bioengineering design. Please explain whether this was a design flaw in choosing the appropriate technique, a construction problem (live material drying out before installation), or a failure to irrigate and/or protect against browse (deer and/or beaver)? The cause of failure needs to be identified before suggesting remedies. Please discuss in the response how plantings to “hold” or “substantiate” the bioengineered structure were expected to work.

Proper assessment of bioengineering planting failure-to-thrive, by a person both qualified and experienced to do this post-project appraisal work, seems to be needed and reported before further work is done. In response, please describe alternatives for completing such a report.


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

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: This project adequately addresses the technical background, tie to the subbasin plan, and Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposal intends to benefit salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout as well as other fishes; waterfowl; upland wildlife; and other aquatic-, wetland-, and riparian-dependent species. The project is being used as a local and regional demonstration project for other stream restoration and watershed projects and as an outdoor educational facility for students of all ages. Phases I through IV are complete on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Red River Wildlife Management Area, one of the four land parcels in the meadow of Lower Red River. Bird populations are said to be increasing, but this may not be associated solely with this project. Elk are mentioned as a non-focal species, but there's no mention of how elk would benefit from this work (will the exclusion fencing withstand elk attention?) A response is needed on the potential benefit to elk.

A response is also needed on the following ISRP comments and concerns:

The proposers concentrate on the post-2002 history and do not present most of the project's 12-year history (some alluded to in section 1). Results in terms of fish or other animal populations are not adequately shown. These are severe deficiencies that should be remedied in the response.

Parts of monitoring and evaluation are spread within the work elements. With regard to biological M&E, subjects are listed, but the methods are not described and a statistical design is not apparent. Clarification in the response is needed of stream-miles treated. Specifically, the numbers of miles that underwent each type of treatment (and miles remaining to be treated) should be set forth clearly in a table. The table should also show the length of the pre-project channel, the length of the present (restored) channel, and the predicted length when the project is completed. A map would be helpful.

A summary is needed of results of the apparently substantial past research expenditure. The narrative seems to say that 4.5 stream-miles have been treated in some way or ways at a total 12-year project cost of $3,445,489---or $765,664 per stream-mile. These costs seem high, even when probable research aspects (results not presented in this history) and apparent channel lengthening (not clearly described) are taken into account. The project's recent reduction of effort seems to have been appropriate. It might be further reduced, unless the project is expanded to include up- or downstream areas and proper biological M&E.

The biggest expenditure item ($137,215) is for Objective 1, which includes planting as remedial works for low survival and slow establishment. In response, please include more information about the presumed failure of the bioengineering design. Please explain whether this was a design flaw in choosing the appropriate technique, a construction problem (live material drying out before installation), or a failure to irrigate and/or protect against browse (deer and/or beaver)? The cause of failure needs to be identified before suggesting remedies. Please discuss in the response how plantings to “hold” or “substantiate” the bioengineered structure were expected to work.

Proper assessment of bioengineering planting failure-to-thrive, by a person both qualified and experienced to do this post-project appraisal work, seems to be needed and reported before further work is done. In response, please describe alternatives for completing such a report.

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