FY 2000 proposal 199303501
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199303501 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199303501 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat Within the Red River Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 199303501 |
| Organization | Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District (ISWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mr. Denny Dawes |
| Mailing address | 1025 East Hatter Creek Road Princeton, ID 83857 |
| Phone / email | 2088751246 / wild@potlatch.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Restore physical and biological processes to create a self-sustaining river/meadow ecosystem using a holistic approach and adaptive management principles to enhance fish, riparian, and wildlife habitat and water quality within the Red River watershed. |
| Target species | spring chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Collaborative purchase of one land parcel in the lower Red River meadow; property deeded over to IDFG in an interagency MOA between IDFG and BPA to manage property as a Wildlife Management Area for habitat restoration and fish and wildlife benefits. |
| 1994 | Surveys of existing conditions; research of historical conditions; planning and project vision discussions with interagency and tribal technical advisory committee; consensus on habitat restoration design philosophy; and budget development. |
| 1995 | NEPA assessment; analysis of restoration options; design criteria established and conceptual restoration designs completed for Phases I and II. |
| 1996 | Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase I and permits obtained; implementation of Phase I of restoration design; began conceptual designs and planning for Phase II |
| 1997 | Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase II and permits obtained; Phase II of restoration design implemented; revegetation completed in Phase I; implementation and post-construction monitoring completed; initial planning for Phase III. |
| 1998 | Surveying, data collection, computer-modeling and preliminary conceptual designs completed for Phases III and IV; revegetation completed for Phase II; turbidity test completed; post-construction monitoring performed; 1997 monitoring report completed. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $126,380 | |
| Fringe | $44,233 | |
| Supplies | $32,192 | |
| Operating | $5,000 | |
| Capital | Easements to protect investment and restore critical fish and wildlife habitat | $211,424 |
| Construction | $104,889 | |
| Travel | $22,470 | |
| Indirect | $3,412 | |
| $550,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $550,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $550,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| In-Kind contributions provided by UI and other organizations (see Sections 8c. & 10). | $0 | unknown | |
| Several cost share programs planned once easements have been established on privately owned land parcels. | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Extreme weather causing saturated soils or high flow conditions, extended easement negotiations, delay in approval of the preliminary design, extreme natural event damaging previously constructed channel features, injury/death of consultant(s)
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. This is not a scientifically justifiable proposal. An audit of both scientific accomplishments to date, and project expenditures should be conducted before any consideration is given to further expenditure of Program funds on this project.Comments: This project is intended to enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the Snake River Basin. It should have proceeded based on assessments of successes or failures of similar projects elsewhere such as the Bear Valley Creek restoration project of the 1980's. If fish runs are restored to Red River, does the restored section contribute more smolts (and other plant and other species' abundances) to the outmigrant population than similar areas that were left to "heal" on their own? No such comparison seems forthcoming. The CBFWA technical evaluation includes the observations that "This watershed is still being grazed and logged. There is considerable concern about the high cost and uncertain biological effectiveness. Project proposes a major structural solution without addressing ongoing land management activities." The ISRP concludes that the project is of questionable benefit to fish and wildlife.
The sponsors argue that the Red River has the potential to be a major spring chinook and steelhead production stream, but that logging roads and mining have resulted in sediment loads that diminish the prospect. However, the proposal does not indicate why this particular reach of 4.4 miles is a bottleneck to production in the watershed. Is this a priority area for this kind of investment? This project remarkably is in its sixth year, with expenditures to date of over $1.6M. Compared with other similar channel restoration projects, the costs seem very much out of line, as a minimum a justification for the unusually high costs should have been provided. Furthermore, it is difficult to identify or assess the project's achievements to date.
The Methods description includes such statements as "The Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project uses a holistic approach …". The meaning in this context is unclear. If the habitat problem in this basin is sediment, one would hope that for $1.6M after six years, some information could have been presented comparing the sediment yield of this basin with others not having the same management history, and that an argument would be made as to how load reductions could or will be achieved. Yet, there is nothing in the proposal indicating that any real habitat improvements will result from this project.
Six years is too long for a project to continue without a comprehensive review. A visiting committee should be convened specifically to evaluate this project. In the interim, no further expenditure of Program funds can be scientifically justified
Comment:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This watershed is still being grazed and logged. There is considerable concern about the high cost and uncertain biological effectiveness.Project proposes a major structural solution without addressing ongoing land management activities.
Proposal is well written but exceeds the page limit.
Comment:
Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed most of the ISRP questions and comments very well. In addition, the response provides new information that should have been included in the original proposal. Of particular importance is the justification for the focus on particular stream reaches. The inclusion of maps and drawings was very helpful. Reviewers note that this project is intended more to address channel stabilization goals than fish restoration goals (see also projects 9608600 and 9706000).Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $0 | $99,570 | $99,570 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website