FY07-09 proposal 200718300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Restoration of Historical Salmonid Habitat in South West Idaho |
Proposal ID | 200718300 |
Organization | Southwest Idaho RC&D |
Short description | Fish passage at road crossings throughout Southwest Idaho has greatly reduced historical anadromous & resident salmonid habitat and migratory routes. This project, culvert barrier replacement in cooperation with tribal governments will restore salmonids. |
Information transfer | This information will be used by fishereies managers to improve salmonid habitat in Southwest Idaho and return native anadromous and resident salmonids to their historical habitats. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Bill Moore | SW Idaho RC&D | debert@fs.fed.us |
All assigned contacts | ||
Thomas Clifford | USDA Forest Service | tclifford@fs.fed.us |
Danny Ebert | Enviros Consultants | awana@spro.net |
Russ Manwaring | West Central Highlands Resource Conservation and Development Area | wchrcd@idahorcd.org |
Bill Moore | SW Idaho RC&D | swidrcd@idahorcd.org |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Boise River tributaries | Many locations of road/stream crossings within the Boise Subbasin. | ||
Boise River tributaries | Many locations of road/stream crossings within the Boise Subbasin. | ||
Payette River tributaries | Many locations of road/stream crossings within the Payette Subbasin. | ||
Johson Creek and South Fork Salmon River | Many locations of road/stream crossings within the Salmon Subbasin. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESUsecondary: Cutthroat Trout
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Freshwater Mussels
secondary: Brown Trout
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
secondary: All Wildlife
Additional: river otter mink
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Restore aquatic organism passage | Restore passage of aquatic organisms by replacing high priority road/stream crossings identified through inventory efforts between 2003 and 2005. | Boise/Payette/Weiser | 1A4. 2A2. 2A3. 2B2. 2B4. 3A3. 3B2. 3D2. 6A1. 7A3. 7A4. |
Restore aquatic organism passage | Restore passage of aquatic organisms by replacing high priority road/stream crossings identified through inventory efforts between 2003 and 2005. | Salmon | Aquatic Objective 12A. Aquatic Objective 12B. Aquatic Objective 28A. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Remove/Install Diversion | Replace Fish Passage Barriers (Culverts) | Remove and Replace Culverts that are Preventing Fish Passage of Anadromous and Resident Salmonids. | 7/1/2007 | 12/30/2009 | $1,056,000 |
Biological objectives Restore aquatic organism passage |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 31.8 miles of new strea habitat accessible to fish |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | labor, site surveys, monitoring | $80,000 | $80,000 | $80,000 |
Supplies | culverts | $200,000 | $200,000 | $200,000 |
Travel | to/from site, meetings | $12,000 | $20,000 | $22,000 |
Overhead | ten percent overhead/mamagement fees | $30,000 | $30,000 | $30,000 |
Other | communications | $60,000 | $6,000 | $6,000 |
Totals | $382,000 | $336,000 | $338,000 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $1,056,000 |
Total work element budget: | $1,056,000 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Duck Valley Inter Tribal | coordiantion, surveys, monitoring | $37,000 | $42,000 | $33,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
Idaho Chapters of Trout Unlimited | intream habitat improvement | $8,000 | $4,000 | $7,000 | In-Kind | Under Review |
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality | monitoring, instream surveys | $12,000 | $13,000 | $17,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
Idaho Department of Fish & Game | Habitat Restoration | $27,000 | $19,000 | $22,000 | Cash | Under Development |
Idaho Department of Transportation | culvert replacement | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | Cash | Under Development |
Idaho Departmernt of Fish & Game | habitat restoration | $35,000 | $35,000 | $35,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
Ted Trueblood Chapter of Trout Unlimited | habitat restoration | $3,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 | Cash | Under Review |
USDA Forest Service | surveys, Nepa, planning, ESA | $45,000 | $34,000 | $47,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
Totals | $192,000 | $175,000 | $189,000 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $600,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $600,000 |
Comments: Future work will continue to replace road culverts that are barriers to anadromous salmonid and resident fish passage. |
Future O&M costs: Future operation and maintenance costs will not be realized on culvert replacement until 2014.
Termination date: 2020
Comments: It will take until 2020 to replace culverts on a priority basis are are currently acting as barriers to anadromous and resident salmonids in the identified subbasins.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | Multi-province | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
Comments: Also reviewed by the MSRT. |
||||||
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Multi-province | ||
Comments: Reduced or removed due to ISRP concerns. MSRT recommends $0. |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal needs further work to satisfy most of the ISRP criteria. Spending over $1 million for accessing 13.8 miles of stream, with no geomorphological assessment and only 60% spent on (design and?) construction, should be supported by a more complete proposal. This culvert project should be part of watershed rehabilitation and guided by the subbasin plan and watershed assessments. It is not linked to subbasin plans, and not identified as an activity having high priority. The technical aspects are not well articulated and there are no data on fish presence. The main objective is to prioritize culvert replacement according to: "The Boise and Sawtooth National Forests also asked the following questions to verify that these crossings were located in areas considered to be priorities for restoration. • Is the project in a high priority subwatershed as determined by the Watershed Aquatic Recovery Strategy and/or Aquatic Conservation Strategy? • How many listed fish or other aquatic species would benefit from upgrading the barrier? • Does critical habitat occur above the culvert? • How many miles would be made accessible if passage was restored? • Will correction of this barrier make the stream more accessible to introduced species?” However, directly after quoting the above, the attached fish barrier report claims to have used the following criteria for Table 4: "The order within Table 4 is not necessarily firm, but is listed in order according to the amount of suitable habitat upstream. Also, note that the miles of perennial stream above each culvert varies greatly. Some perennial stream miles may not necessarily provide suitable fisheries habitat, but may provide habitat for other aquatic-dependent species." Attached to Table 4 is the following: "Criteria for ranking culverts are weighted mainly on the miles of habitat that will be accessible after replacement. However, our criteria included the inventory priority for species, the aquatic conservation strategy, the watershed and aquatic recovery strategy, the benefit to listed species, and the accessibility to introduced species." No process for using these criteria is explained; what is one supposed to conclude from this jumble of supposed criteria? This is indicative of poor science, particularly when it is the basis for spending $1 million. The cookie-cutter diagrams showing how a hanging culvert is replaced are dangerous in situations where the morphological dynamics of the stream are unknown, as in this case apparently -- again, not good science. The method statement is brief and vague. No mention of culvert replacement design (clear-span bridge or bottomless culvert) is given based on geomorphic analysis, including possible incision or aggradation processes and sediment sources, and the need for the capacity to pass a chosen-probability flood (and sediment without concentrating flow and increasing the velocity/unit width ratio that will likely cause erosion immediately downstream). Monitoring and evaluation are mentioned twice in the entire proposal but are not adequately described. Facilities, equipment and personnel are not very specific and without mention of the necessary fluvial geomorphology expertise needed for this proposal. No information transfer is mentioned. There is insufficient explanation of benefits to focal species and other activities in the watershed. The proposal indicates non-focal species as "All Wildlife, Brown Trout, Bull Trout, Cutthroat Trout, Freshwater Mussels, Rainbow Trout, Westslope Cutthroat, river otter & mink", but makes no further mention of the benefits to these species.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal needs further work to satisfy most of the ISRP criteria. Spending over $1 million for accessing 13.8 miles of stream, with no geomorphological assessment and only 60% spent on (design and?) construction, should be supported by a more complete proposal. This culvert project should be part of watershed rehabilitation and guided by the subbasin plan and watershed assessments. It is not linked to subbasin plans, and not identified as an activity having high priority. The technical aspects are not well articulated and there are no data on fish presence. The main objective is to prioritize culvert replacement according to: "The Boise and Sawtooth National Forests also asked the following questions to verify that these crossings were located in areas considered to be priorities for restoration. • Is the project in a high priority subwatershed as determined by the Watershed Aquatic Recovery Strategy and/or Aquatic Conservation Strategy? • How many listed fish or other aquatic species would benefit from upgrading the barrier? • Does critical habitat exist above the culvert? • How many miles would be made accessible if passage was restored? • Will correction of this barrier make the stream more accessible to introduced species?” However, directly after quoting the above, the attached fish barrier report claims to have used the following criteria for Table 4: "The order within Table 4 is not necessarily firm, but is listed in order according to the amount of suitable habitat upstream. Also, note that the miles of perennial stream above each culvert varies greatly. Some perennial stream miles may not necessarily provide suitable fisheries habitat, but may provide habitat for other aquatic-dependent species." Attached to Table 4 is the following: "Criteria for ranking culverts are weighted mainly on the miles of habitat that will be accessible after replacement. However, our criteria included the inventory priority for species, the aquatic conservation strategy, the watershed and aquatic recovery strategy, the benefit to listed species, and the accessibility to introduced species." No process for using these criteria is explained; what is one supposed to conclude from this jumble of supposed criteria? This is indicative of poor science, particularly when it is the basis for spending $1 million. The cookie-cutter diagrams showing how a hanging culvert is replaced are dangerous in situations where the morphological dynamics of the stream are unknown, as in this case apparently -- again, not good science. The method statement is brief and vague. No mention of culvert replacement design (clear-span bridge or bottomless culvert) is given based on geomorphic analysis, including possible incision or aggradation processes and sediment sources, and the need for the capacity to pass a chosen-probability flood (and sediment without concentrating flow and increasing the velocity/unit width ratio that will likely cause erosion immediately downstream). Monitoring and evaluation are mentioned twice in the entire proposal but are not adequately described. Facilities, equipment and personnel are not very specific and without mention of the necessary fluvial geomorphology expertise needed for this proposal. No information transfer is mentioned. There is insufficient explanation of benefits to focal species and other activities in the watershed. The proposal indicates non-focal species as "All Wildlife, Brown Trout, Bull Trout, Cutthroat Trout, Freshwater Mussels, Rainbow Trout, Westslope Cutthroat, river otter & mink", but makes no further mention of the benefits to these species.