FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 199405000: Salmon River Habitat Enhancement

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 Heather Ray

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199405000
Proposal Name: Salmon River Habitat Enhancement
BPA Project Manager: Jan Brady
Agency, Institution or Organization: Shoshone Bannock Tribes
Short Description: Continue to monitor and evaluate previous habitat enhancemnet efforts and the effects of mine impacts. Complete preliminary data collection and feasability studies on two new locations for habitat enhancements in the Upper Salmon River Subbasin.
Information Transfer: Trasfer of data to stream net, presentation at scientific conferences, completion of public reports, presentation at local meetings, pulication in peer-review scientific journals. The feasablitry study will be used to develop a plan to enhance areas previously impacted by mining.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Heather Ray Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall 29 Shoshone Dr. P.O. Box 306
Fort Hall ID 83203
Ph: 208.239.4556
Fax: 208.478.3986
Email: hray@shoshonebannocktribes.com
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Heather Ray Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall 29 Shoshone Dr. P.O. Box 306
Fort Hall ID 83203
Ph: 208.239.4556
Fax: 208.478.3986
Email: hray@shoshonebannocktribes.com
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Mountain Snake ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Salmon ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
442500N 1151730W Bear Valley Creek Bear Valley Creek, tributary to Middle Fork Salmon River Valley, Idaho Salmon Yes
440730N 1143000W Big Boulder Creek Big Boulder Creek, tributary to East Fork Salmon River Custer, Idaho Salmon Yes
440730N 1141500W Herd Creek Herd Creek, tributary to East Fork Salmon River Custer, Idaho Salmon Yes
450452 1141501 Panther Creek Panther Creek, tributary to Salmon River Lemhi, Idaho Salmon Yes
4401159 1143610 Slate Creek Slate Creek, tributary to Salmon River Custer, Idaho Salmon Yes
435023 1144855 Smiley Creek Smiley Creek, tributary to Salmon River Blaine, Idaho Salmon Yes
442000N 1144232W Yankee Fork Salmon River Yankee Fork Salmon River, tributary to Salmon River Custer, Idaho Salmon Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Steelhead Snake River ESU

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
2004 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
2003 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
2002 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
2001 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
2000 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
1999 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
1998 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
1997 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
1996 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.Willows planted in Herd C
1995 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss. Willows planted in Herd Cr.
1994 Vertical banks in a cutoff channel in Big Boulder Creek were sloped, the stream was diverted away from high cut bank, returned to a more natural meander pattern within 0.5 km of affected floodplain, eliminating the cutoff channel as a sediment source
1993 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.
1992 Fencing constructed on Herd Creek to discourage livestock use of streambank and riparian areas, thus improving streambank stability and reducing sediment input into stream
1991 Successful interconnection of four series of remenant dredge ponds within mainstem Yankee Fork Salmon River, creating over 1.5 ha of additional rearing habitat for anadromous fish
1990 Monitoring and evaluation activites were completed to determine success of the enhancement activities. Data analyzed reveals that the habitat enhancements are successfull in reducing impacts to biotic community from habitat loss.
1989 Reclamation of 2.5 km of floodplain in Bear Valley Creek eliminated substantial source of sediment into remaining 50 km of Stream and Middle for Salmon River

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
PCSRF - Idaho [no entry] all SA projects Assist in some capacity in review, implementation, evaluation of these projects thorough the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project Technical Team or intertribal participation
BPA 198810804 Streamnet (CIS/NED) submit data from this project to streamnet
BPA 198909803 Salmon Studies Id Rvrs SBT Coordination of data collection, sharing of data, personnel, equipment as needed.
BPA 199107100 Sockeye Salmon Hab & Limnologi cooperation, equipment and data sharing, and field assistance
BPA 199401700 Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Participate in Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Porject Technical Team
BPA 199700100 Idaho Chinook Salmon Captive R share data and assist with monitoring activities for West Fork Yankee Fork Salmon River
BPA 200007300 Subbasin Assessments Participated in Upper Salmon River Subbasin Fisheries Technical Assessment Team
BPA 200205900 Yankee Fork Salmon R Restorati Assist in development and planning of project and share data on Yankee Fork
BPA 200600600 Habitat Evaluation Project advise and review for project
BPA Demo00001 Demonstration Project advise and review for South Fork Salmon River and Lemhi River Demonstration Projects
Other: PCSRF PCSRP Tribal Resource Plan, Herd Creek 3 Diversion and Headgate Replacement Project, Salmon Supplementation Activi Assist in these projects as needed though technical review and oversight

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
1A Increase the number of naturally spawning adults to achieve recovery goals within 24 years Salmon 1A1, 1A2, 1A3 21-26
1B By the 4th field hydrologic unit, carry out focused activities designed to improve our understanding and definition of small populations, while protective the genetic integrity of wild populations that are below historic levels Salmon 2A1, 2A4, 2A7 21-26
23A Where stream temperatures have been defined a high priority limiting factor, rehabilitate to levels that support current IDEQ designated beneficial use criteria Salmon 8C1-8C3 62
24A Stabilize 10,000 feet (ISCC 1995) of streambank in Herd Creek focusing on areas where the stream exhibits excessive width:depth ratios Salmon 8C1-8C3 62
26A Rehabilitate or mimic natural hydrograph of tributaries to the Upper Salmon R. Salmon 9A1-9A14 63
27A Starting in critical habitat areas, reduce instream sedimentation to levels meeting applicable water quality standards and measures, with an established upward trend in the number of stream miles meeting such criterion by 2019. Salmon 10A1-10A8 63
3B compare freshwater conditions among populations to more accurately define habitat rehabilitation needs Salmon [Strategy left blank] 21-26
3C address data gaps necessary to measure progress towards delisting and full recovery Salmon 3C1, 3C2, 3C3 21-26

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
BPA Environmental Compliance NEPA and BiOp [Work Element Description Not Entered] 10/1/2006 3/31/2007 $5,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Plant Vegetation Willow Planting In cooperation with the landowner, plant approximately 500 willows annually in Herd Creek Measure % survivorship of plated willows 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $13,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Provide Public Access/Information Provide public information Maintain informational signs in Bear Valley Creek and Yankee Fork Install signs as needed in new implementation areas 10/1/2008 9/30/2009 $5,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Coordination Coordination of Activities in Subbasin Coordinate with those involved with fish and wildlife work Landowner coordination in Herd Creek, Smiley Creek, and Slate Creek 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $10,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Identify and Select Projects Identify and Select Projects as member of USBWPTT participate in activities associated with this group mentioned 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $6,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Manage Administrate Activities for Project Manage on the ground efforts, subcontractors, administrative work, complete metric reporting, financial reporting, and SOW package 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Design and/or Specifications Produce feasability study Subcontractors will prepare engineering design and specifications associated with the implementation actions in Smiley and Slate Creeks. 10/1/2007 9/30/2008 $100,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Inventory or Assessment Design and complete inventory and assessment Using established and tested techniques; Smiley Creek - summarize available data, determine data gaps/needs and design complete inventory for analysis before and after implementation actions. Slate Creek - determine data gaps/needs and design complete inventory for monitoring before and after implementation actions. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $150,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Provide Technical Review Provide Technical Review review technical details associated with engineering and restoration plans, PNAMP/CSMEP RM&E methods 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $7,924
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Annual Report produce annual progress report produce feasibility study report on Smiley and Slate Creek 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $150,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze and interpret data for evaluation of M&E activities and application to reports and publications 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $300,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Data collection in areas of previous habitat enhancement efforts and in new areas to fill data gaps and begin M&E for before action. 4/1/2007 9/30/2009 $400,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Create/Manage/Maintain Database Create/manage/maintain database Create a MS Access database for long term dataset in Bear Valley Creek 11/1/2007 4/30/2008 $6,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Develop RM&E Methods and Designs Develop and test methods Work with the PNAMP/CSMEP to develop and test RM&E methods 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $15,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results disseminate data Transfer summary reports, posters, redd maps and other data, tables, and/or figures to interested parties Present data at one professional scientific conference, minimally 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $5,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Submit/Acquire Data Submit Data to WWWeb Transfer data to Streamnet and other databases as available/accessible 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $5,000
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 Coordinator $11,325 $11,891 $12,486
Personnel Project Manager $49,817 $52,308 $54,923
Personnel Biologist $40,950 $42,998 $45,147
Personnel Senior Technician $36,223 $38,035 $39,936
Personnel Technician $21,682 $22,766 $23,905
Personnel 2 summer Technicians $8,339 $8,756 $9,194
Personnel Assistant $1,092 $1,147 $1,204
Personnel Clerk $7,817 $8,208 $8,618
Fringe Benefits 31% $54,670 $57,403 $60,273
Travel perdiem 6 people 100 days $27,090 $28,445 $29,867
Travel lodging $462 $485 $509
Other BPA training $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Other professional meetings $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
Other vehicles $18,238 $18,602 $18,974
Supplies office and field supplies and equipment $10,220 $10,425 $10,633
Other Field trailer space rental $1,050 $1,050 $1,050
Other subcontractor $50,000 $50,000 $ 0
Overhead Indirect costs 28% $64,936 $68,183 $71,592
Totals $408,911 $425,702 $393,311

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$1,227,924
Total Work Element budget$1,227,924

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
Idaho State University equipmnet and laboratory use $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 In-Kind Confirmed
USDA Forest Service Laboratory space in study area $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $8,000 $8,000 $8,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$1,400,000 $1,450,000 This was estimated based on other current restoration/enhancement projects in the area but is only a guess until more data becomes available.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
O&M was estimated for this section at $1,000,000 for each restortation action. This actual estimate will be available when the feasability studies are complete in 2007-8. Outyear M&E for all the project areas is estimated at 400,000-450,000.
 
Termination Date Comments
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


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

FY 2007 Budget
$231,380
FY 2008 Budget
$231,380
FY 2009 Budget
$231,380
Total NPCC Rec
$694,140
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable in part. Remove habitat restoration work, and Bear Valley Creek monitoring and evaluation (per ISRP recommendation)


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

FY 2007 Budget
$231,380
FY 2008 Budget
$231,380
FY 2009 Budget
$231,380
Total NPCC Rec
$694,140
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: ISRP fundable in part. Remove habitat restoration work, and Bear Valley Creek monitoring and evaluation (per ISRP recommendation)


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

Recommendation: Fundable in part
NPCC Comments: This proposal is actually two proposals in one cover that would be better separated into different proposals. The ISRP recommends that only the monitoring component of this proposal is fundable, with the exception of that in Bear Valley Creek.

The sponsors are strongly acknowledged for past monitoring and its contribution to new proposed projects, even if they are not justified as submitted. These proposed projects on Slate and Smiley Creeks address diffuse sediment/flow problems that are difficult to attack and probably of medium priority. Fine sediment in both creeks is high but no convincing evidence is given in the proposal or response that stabilizing two reaches of bank is the best approach. The justification cites the Subbasin Plan and the Sawtooth National Forest Plan. In fact, both mention a need to reduce sediment input, but the latter especially identifies grazing management as the most needed change. Reviewers recommend passive restoration over any “hard” approaches. The proposed projects in Slate and Smiley Creeks are not fundable.

Project sponsors have submitted a reasonable argument for continuing the monitoring effort, but the Bear Valley Creek monitoring has run its course, and is no longer justified. It is stated that the Bear Valley experience will provide guidance for similar projects elsewhere. The argument that higher fish densities are associated with low fines must also acknowledge that low densities also occurred at low fines. Overall results are inconclusive, and it appears that project impacts have stabilized and there is no new information about project impacts to be gained from further monitoring here.

In the case of the other monitoring, the relatively long run of data would, at first glance, suggest that perhaps they have monitored long enough, but explaining the influences of events such as floods and changes in land and water use justify continuing this monitoring well into the future. There is reason now to monitor actual focal species as well as proxies, even though out-of-basin effects persist. Adaptive management is not directly addressed, but should be. One case is noted in which data collection was discontinued when not useful, but use of monitoring data to improve projects is not explicit.

Reporting to Streamnet and intent to publish in open literature is evident. Substantially improved communication and collaboration with other projects is apparent. The narrative demonstrates close integration with projects, past, present and upcoming, under various sponsorships, not just BPA, and at varied scale. They should investigate linking up with the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) project #200301700 that is doing work in the Upper Salmon.


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

Recommendation: Fundable in part
NPCC Comments: Two proposals in one cover might be better separated into different projects, at least until the new projects succeed into a routine monitoring mode following site modifications. Sponsors should be strongly acknowledged for past monitoring and its contribution to new proposed projects.

New projects on Smiley and Slate creeks represent diffuse sediment/flow problems that are difficult to attack and probably of medium priority. Smiley Creek work includes "stabilizing" 10,000 ft of bank, but technique is unfortunately not described. If this is hand labor and minimally intrusive that is OK, but not so if requires heavy equipment and soil disturbance. Rampant spread of invasive plants may make weeds more of a problem on new re-grading sites more than in the past. This should be anticipated and prevented/controlled, especially given the hazard of downstream distributions of invasives during high water events. Funding for these project elements should depend on the absence of disturbance, and absence of risk for spread of invasive plants.

Not only have they been monitoring relative to measured baselines, but they report some results. They do show some increase in resident species at some projects, but not for anadromous species. The sponsors need to spend more time convincing reviewers that the monitoring project should be continued. They show some changes before and after their habitat projects, but graphing the number of parr produced in different numbers of redds does not show that their work has been successful. These graphs should have a year associated with each point so that the parr produced at any level of redds can be examined. Also, the number of smolts produced each year should have been included in the program. It is likely that the number of smolts is largely determined by survival from parr to smolt, and these data provide no insight into whether or not the number of smolts has been increased at any density by their habitat enhancement efforts.

In terms of habitat, the approaches seem based upon both science and experience, and address both physical and biological conditions in parallel. The relatively long run of data would, at first glance suggest that perhaps they have monitored long enough, but explaining the influences of events such as floods and changes in land and water use, justify continuing this monitoring well into the future. However, the Bear Valley monitoring probably does not need to be continued.

Sponsors did not mention whether they are endeavoring to use "standardized" M&E protocol as was recommended by last ISRP review - is this still an issue? Excellent reporting to Streamnet and intent to publish in open literature is evident. There is reason now to monitor actual focal species as well as proxies, even though out-of-basin effects persist. Adaptive management is not directly addressed. One case is noted in which data collection was discontinued when not useful, but use of data to fine-tune procedures is not explicit.

Good evidence of substantially improved communication and collaboration with other projects is evident. The narrative demonstrates close integration with projects, past, present and upcoming, under various sponsorships, not just BPA, and at varied scale. They should link up with the NOAA Habitat Effectiveness Pilot Study.

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