FY 2000 proposal 199306200

Additional documents

199306200 Narrative Narrative
199306200 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSalmon River Anadromous Fish Passage Enhancement
Proposal ID199306200
OrganizationLemhi and Custer Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Lemhi SWCD/Custer SWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGlenn Seaberg, Project Coordinator
Mailing address206 Van Dreff Ste A Salmon, ID 83467
Phone / email2087566322 / mws@dmi.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionTo protect, enhance and restore anadromous and resident fish habitat and achieve and maintain a balance between resource protection and resource use on a holistic watershed management basis.
Target speciesSnake River Spring Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Snake River Summer Steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss Salmon River Basin Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus Salmon River Basin Cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus lewisi
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 Eighteenmile 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
9202603 Model Watershed Coordination and Administration/Implementation Support Directly supports the Model Watershed project coordinator, office coordinator, office space, and equipment.
9401700 Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Projects A co-project for the Model Watershed project area which specifically addresses anadromous fish habitat.
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 MWP Coordinator, Planner and NRCS/IDFG Engineering Staff paid from BPA Project #’s 9202603 and 94017 $0
Fringe $0
Supplies $66,500
Construction $28,500
Travel covered under related projects $0
Indirect 5% SWCD overhead $5,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$100,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$100,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Landowner Labor, Contracting, O&M $160,000 unknown
ID Fish & Game Project Funding $40,000 unknown
Bureau of Reclamation Project Funding $100,000 unknown
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Project Funding $20,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: 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 short description of this project is identical to that of 9401700. This proposal states what the problem is that is being dealt with but falls short on most details. Objectives and methods are mixed together, and the methods listed are described so generally that they can't be evaluated. Little biological monitoring is identified, and the methods for it are inadequately described. Alternative approaches are not described. Unwanted side effects are not discussed. The proposed budget covers materials purchase only. Personnel are not described well. Otherwise the proposal is clearly written and articulates the rationale, past history, and accomplishments, as well as describing general future activities in the 2000-2005 time frame. Past work under the project has resulted in biological benefits which, although very tersely presented, document improved summer flows (dewatering common for 1-6 weeks annually before this project), a doubling of spawning counts of resident rainbow trout in the target monitoring sections, and elimination of many migration barriers often through consolidation. While the results were very general in nature (and reviewers wished for more quantification), the presentation of results and progress toward an identified goal was noteworthy. While the model watershed program 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" on this project and on project 9401700 and on project 9306200.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


BPA contracting splits the Id. Model WS effort (9202603, 9306200, 9401700)
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


Proposal lacks specific detail on project activities. Sections 3 and 4 (including cost-shares) repeat information from the previous proposals (9202603 and 9401700). This proposal should provide more detail on project accomplishments and activities proposed for FY2000.

What is present versus potential fisheries recovery in this drainage?

Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]