FY 2000 proposal 199202603

Additional documents

199202603 Narrative Narrative
199202603 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleIdaho Model Watershed Administration/Implementation Support
Proposal ID199202603
OrganizationIdaho Soil Conservation Commission (SCC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBiff Burleigh
Mailing addressP.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0083
Phone / email2083328652 / bburleig@agri.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionProvide a basis of coordination and cooperation between local, private, state, tribal, and federal fish and land managers, land users, land owners and other affected entities to manage the biological, social and economic resources to protect, restore and
Target speciesChinook Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1993 Stabilized 200 yards of streambank on East Fork of the Salmon River.
1993 Improved 29 irrigation diversion structures on the Lemhi River.
1994 experimental “fish flush” conducted by irrigators to allow chinook adults passage to spawning areas on Lemhi River.
1994 Big Flat Ditch siphon completed to reconnect Carmen Creek to the mainstem Salmon River.
1995 Riparian enhancement fence completed on 4.5 miles of streambank on two ranches in the Pahsimeroi and three ranches on the Lemhi River.
1995 Point of diversion transferred from the Pahsimeroi River to the Salmon River.
1995 Two diversions eliminated on Lemhi River with a combined net savings of 1,600 acre feet of water.
1995 Seven irrigation diversions consolidated into three irrigation diversions on Lemhi River.
1996 Three ranches near Leadore construct fencing and implement grazing/pasture management systems along 5.75 miles of critical stream habitat along Lemhi River.
1996 Two canals eliminated from the Salmon River through consolidation into Challis Irrigation Canal.
1996 Constructed riparian enhancement fences on two ranches in East Fork along 1.75 miles of river.
1996 Diversions EF-7 and EF-8 consolidated on East Fork.
1997 Completed L-3A diversion structure and bypass system on Lemhi River.
1997 Reset pipe on old L-5 diversion to provide off-channel rearing habitat on Lemhi River.
1997 Constructed 0.75 miles of fence and developed a grazing system for a ranch along the Lemhi River.
1997 Constructed 15 miles of fence on 8.5 miles of the upper Lemhi River along critical chinook spawning and rearing habitat.
1997 Streambank stabilization and off-channel rearing site along lower Lemhi River.
1997 Construction of 0.85 miles of fence on the lower Lemhi stream reach.
1997 Construction of 0.75 miles of fence along Pattee Creek, tributary to Lemhi River.
1997 Riparian pasture management fencing was constructed on three ranches along 3 miles of the Pahsimeroi River.
1997 Phase I of a riparian management project on the East Fork installed a series of instream bank stabilization structures.
1998 At L-8a diversion, a headgate, wasteway, and vortex weir were installed to facilitate fish passage and eliminate gravel push up dams on Lemhi River.
1998 Riparian fence along 0.90 miles of the upper Lemhi River and Texas Creek, tributary to the Lemhi.
1998 Riparian fence along 1.2 miles of Hayden Creek, tributary to the Lemhi River.
1998 Riparian fence along 1.0 mile of Eighteen mile Creek a headwater tributary of the Lemhi River.
1998 Riparian fence and grazing management system along 1.0 mile of Pahsimeroi River/Patterson Creek.
1998 Riparian fence have been started with 3 landowners along 2.8 miles of the East Fork.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9401700 Idaho Model Watershed Habitat A co-project of the Model Watershed
Enhancement Project project which specifically addresses anadromous fish habitat
9306200 Salmon River Anadromous Fish Passage Enhancement A co-project for the Model Watershed project area which specifically addresses physical barriers to anadromous fish passage.
9401500 Idaho Fish Screening Improvement-O&M A related project to reduce fish mortality in irrigation diversions.
8909800 Idaho Supplementation Studies Information Collection This project is part of ISS research which is used for monitoring and evaluating anadromous and resident stocks within the Model Watershed project area.
9009 Restore the Salmon River, in Challis, Idaho This projects area is outside the current MWP area, however it compliments the current habitat and passage projects in the upper Salmon River basin.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Coordinator, part time office coordinator, and SCC staff support $69,000
Fringe Coordinator, part time office coordinator, and SCC staff support $23,000
Supplies Office space, equipment, supplies, vehicle lease $24,000
Operating Information & education $4,800
NEPA Covered in BPA Watershed Mgt. Program final EIS, and project NEPA checklist under project 941700 $0
Travel Coordinator, Office Coordinator, SCC Staff $9,000
Indirect 10% overhead to SCC $17,000
Other Advisory Committee, Soil Conservation District expenses $5,500
Subcontractor Hatch Box Program $9,600
Subcontractor T&E Species Consultation $2,500
Subcontractor Intern/Volunteer Assistance $6,000
Subcontractor GIS Assistance $5,000
Subcontractor Watershed Plan Update $10,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$185,400
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$185,400
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Landowners Planning, Labor, Contracting $53,100 unknown
Idaho Fish & Game Planning & Tech Support $25,600 unknown
BLM/US Forest Service Planning & Tech Support $28,700 unknown
NRCS Planning & Tech Support $65,800 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: No constraints exist, Model Watershed Assessment Plan contains general project design, specific tasks and draft approvals for plan completion. However, participation from landowners to install Best Management Practices to benefit the streamside vegetative cover and ultimately the fishery is always uncertain. The current perception of the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts is that if it can be designed to have benefits for the landowner as well as the fish habitat, the landowner will participate. Due to the cooperative nature of the Model Watershed Project, project evaluation can be a complicated and lengthy process. Project scope often changes with the development of consensus, perception of needs, and state and federal permit requirements. Unavailability of technical support can slow down planning needs such as biological assessments and cultural resource clearances. This evolving process makes annual budgeting a difficult task as planners and cooperators become aware of project needs. Also, with annual variation in chinook spawn timing and fish distribution, streamside projects may need to be delayed or expedited accordingly to minimize possible negative impacts to listed species. Further delays may occur to accommodate the management needs of the landowner (i.e. irrigation diversion can’t be shut down during critical irrigation periods). Other limiting factors including weather, flooding, and availability of materials can constrain the implementation of projects.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on a performance audit of these three proposal, 9202603, 9401700, and 9306200, to determine if the results are benefiting fish and wildlife in a cost effective manner. The proposals should be consolidated into one proposal with better described methods for selecting and prioritizing restoration efforts and for monitoring and evaluation. They also need a timeline for termination.

Comments: The Lemhi River once had a chinook population, but the river dried up in drought years. The watershed program has subsequently united previously contentious parties. However reviewers are concerned about the quality of the proposal. This proposal, along with 9401700 and 9306200, list exactly the same accomplishments, since 1993. Most of the narrative portions of all three proposals are also identical. Because of this, the three proposals either need to be combined into a single proposal, or two of the three should be discontinued. There appears to be no performance accountability in any of the proposals. The project is more implementation than "watershed."

The project's history is mixed into the technical background section. Instead, that section should present the scientific basis for the project. The proposal mentions "holistic" watershed management, but doesn't describe in detail how the concept enters into its objectives or tasks. The planned "watershed plan update" ($10,000) is undefined. The proposal's literature references are inadequate. Qualifications of project personnel are inadequately described. The proposal fails to describe US Forest Service and other federal management in the watershed. Nor does it adequately describe the biological component of their monitoring and evaluation.

A "hatchbox" program is mentioned in the proposal but is not covered by any of the objectives or methods—and such a program certainly could not apply to any objective of a watershed project. Hatchbox projects, while popular with the media and public, have a record of poor success. The inclusion of a hatchbox program in this proposal, particularly without defining a rigorous plan to test and evaluate their effectiveness, is not appropriate. Reviewers suggest elimination of the hatchbox program and its $9,600 budget item (p. 8).

This proposal supports a project coordinator and office staff with $185K. While the model watershed program is a good one, and is doing important work that is gaining momentum in the community, a performance audit might result in some tightening of the program and its budget. For example, one individual (Glen Seaborg) is shown as "full time" not only on this project but also on project 9401700 and on project 9306200. Can equivalent results be accomplished with a lower level of funding?

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


BPA contracting splits the Id. Model WS effort (9202603, 9306200, 9401700)
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999


The proposal is better written this year and provides more justification.

Project has been in operation since 1992 and should more fully demonstrate that it is meeting its biological objectives. Section 4 provides a good history but what are the tangible measures of success? Fishery improvements? Milestones?

Section 3 should include links to the umbrella plan for Salmon River subbasin.

Continue improving the program -level monitoring of accomplishments and results.

Coordination proposals should include a clearly developed performance plan (i.e. external and internal review of progress).

It is difficult to apply integrated technical criteria to coordination projects.

Isn't the coordinator's salary funded by another agency?

Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$356,458 $356,458 $356,458

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website