FY 2001 Ongoing proposal 199303501

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

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	2088752500 / wild@potlatch.com
Manager authorizing this project	Mr. Scott Wasem, Chairman, ISWCD
Review cycle	FY 2001 Ongoing
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

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	a. Collaborative purchase of one land parcel in the Lower Red River Meadow.
	b. Property deeded to IDFG in an interagency MOA between IDFG and BPA to manage property as the Red River Wildlife Management Area for habitat restoration and fish and wildlife benefits.
1994	a. Surveys of existing conditions and research of historical conditions.
	b. Planning and project vision discussions with interagency and tribal Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
	c. TAC consensus on habitat restoration design philosophy.
1995	a. NEPA assessment.
	b. Design criteria established and restoration options analyzed.
	c. Conceptual restoration designs completed for Phases I and II.
1996	a. Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase I and permits obtained.
	b. On the ground restoration work in Phase I implemented; stream channel length increased by approximately 1,100 feet, sinuosity increased from 1.7 to 1.9, and gradient decreased from 0.24 to 0.22 percent.
	c. Five rock grade control structures placed to raise low flow water surface elevations and create pool/riffle habitat.
1997	a. Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase II and permits obtained.
	b. On the ground restoration work in Phase II implemented; stream channel length increased by an additional 1,960 feet, sinuosity increased from 1.9 to 2.3, and gradient decreased from 0.22 to 0.18 percent.
	c. Disturbed construction areas reseeded with a native seed mix and 31,500 native woody and herbaceous plants installed in Phases I and II.
	d. First year of comprehensive implementation and effectiveness monitoring initiated.
	e. Fish habitat area increased by approximately 35 percent on the entire RRWMA and by nearly 95 percent in Phases I and II alone; both number of pool/riffle sequences and residual pool depths increased by approximately 60 percent.
	f. Eight wildlife exclosures built in Phase I and planted with native woody plant species.
1998	a. Topographic surveying, watershed data collection, computer-modeling, and monitoring data used to complete preliminary conceptual designs for Phases III and IV.
	b. Revegetation completed in Phase II for a total of 46,200 plantings in Phases I and II; three wildlife exclosures built in Phase II and planted with native woody plant species.
	c. Turbidity control test completed to improve best management practices.
	d. Second year of implementation and effectiveness monitoring performed; monitoring and surveying stations expanded to collect baseline information in Phases III and IV.
	e. Average first-year survival rate of all herbaceous and woody riparian plantings equaled 83 percent.
	f. Monitoring results analyzed and compiled in Draft 1997 Monitoring Report.
1999	a. Channel cross-section dimensions refined, using monitoring results and additional stream discharge data, to reflect a more accurate estimate of dynamic equilibrium and dominant flow.
	b. Final engineering drawing package completed for Phase III and permits obtained.
	c. On the ground restoration work in Phase III and enhancement work in Phase II implemented; stream channel length increased by an additional 395 feet and additional plantings, pointbar reshaping, and bioengineered streambank features installed.
	d. Disturbed construction areas reseeded with a native seed mix and 18,775 native woody and herbaceous plants installed in Phase III for a total of 64,975 plantings in Phases I-III.
	e. Third year of implementation and effectiveness monitoring performed; preliminary 1998 monitoring data compiled in Draft 1998 Monitoring Report.
	f. 1996-97 Biennial Report completed.
	g. Preliminary planning initiated for Phase IV, including channel alignment alternative analysis.

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 2001 cost	Subcontractor
1. Prepare conceptual restoration design.	a. Perform detailed topographic and wetland survey.	6 years: Task performed for each project phase. One phase is constructed each year. Phases V-X yet to be completed in the Lower Meadow.	$17,000	Yes
	b. Use monitoring results, current watershed data, and hydrodynamic model to refine design criteria and select best alternative for designated project objectives.	same as above	$7,750
	c. Prepare informational materials.	same as above	$8,000
	d. Conduct meetings to obtain approval from Technical Advisory Committee, landowners, and other affected parties.	same as above	$7,500
2. Obtain permits and agency approvals.	a. Submit stream alteration permit to US Army Corps of Engineers and Idaho Department of Water Resources.	same as above	$5,500
	b. Consult as necessary for ESA species and ensure compliance with original NEPA.	same as above	$5,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2002	FY 2003
$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	$55,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor
1. Restore natural river channel characteristics and floodplain function.	a. Secure conservation easements.	3-5 years: Three properties in the lower meadow.	$100,000
	b. Complete final engineering documents.	6 years: Task performed for each project phase. One phase is constructed each year. Phases V-X yet to be completed in the Lower Meadow.	$15,000	Yes
	c. Provide on-site construction planning, layout and staking, engineering support, and field direction.	same as above	$30,000	Yes
	d. Procure construction materials and supplies.	same as above	$20,000
	e. Construct new channel cross-section and alignment.	same as above	$70,000	Yes
	f. Install restoration features including bioengineered bank treatments and grade control structures.	same as above	$75,000	Yes
	g. Provide on-site construction communications.	same as above	$7,500
	h. Supervise and manage restoration activities.	same as above	$27,000
2. Restore meadow and riparian plant communities.	a. Collect seed and willow poles and grow plant material.	same as above	$46,000	Yes
	b. Plant seedlings and willow poles.	same as above	$31,000	Yes
	c. Install erosion control fabric and seed.	same as above	$25,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2002	FY 2003
$430,000	$430,000	$440,000	$420,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor
1. Preserve investment in project.	a. Management and/or replant vegetation as necessary.	20+ years: Long-term task to protect investment.	$2,000	Yes
	b. Maintain access roads as necessary.	same as above	$1,000	Yes
	c. Perform any adaptive management actions identified by the monitoring program and approved by the TAC.	same as above	$2,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2002	FY 2003
$8,000	$9,000	$6,000	$7,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor
1. Implementation Monitoring: Ensure restoration work is implemented as designed and approved by TAC and that water quality standards and permit conditions are upheld.	a. Collect short-term monitoring data including as built channel survey, construction-related turbidity and sediment load, qualitative TAC field reviews, and erosion and planting success transects.	6 years: Task performed for each project phase. One phase is constructed each year. Phases V-X yet to be completed in the Lower Meadow.	$18,000	Yes
	b. Compile, analyze, and report short-term monitoring data.	same as above	$13,750
	c. Use monitoring results with adaptive management process to improve future designs and construction procedures.	same as above	$3,500
2. Effectiveness Monitoring: Evaluate the performance of restoration work to stabilize the stream channel, restore floodplain function, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and reestablish native riparian and wet meadow plant communities.	a. Collect long-term monitoring data to measure sediment balance, bank erosion, substrate, water temperature, ground and surface water elevations, riparian plant composition, fish populations, fish and wildlife habitat quality, and floodplain function.	15+ years: Long-term commitment to document the success of restoration activities in meeting established performance criteria.	$15,000	Yes
	b. Compile, analyze, and report long-term monitoring data.	same as above	$11,000
	c. Use monitoring results with adaptive management process to improve future designs and construction procedures.	same as above	$3,500
	d. Summarize successes and lessons learned to provide guidelines for similar projects in the region.	same as above	$2,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2002	FY 2003
$65,000	$65,000	$65,000	$70,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: 0.3	$19,300
Fringe		$5,800
Supplies		$1,000
Travel		$6,000
Indirect		$2,150
NEPA	NEPA completed in 1996	$0
Subcontractor	Professional Wetland Scientist	$4,000
Subcontractor	Professional Engineer	$3,000
Subcontractor	Professional Surveyor	$10,000
Personnel	FTE: 0.3	$20,300
Fringe		$6,100
Supplies		$20,000
Travel		$6,000
Indirect		$2,100
Capital	Conservation easement	$100,000
Subcontractor	Professional Engineer	$45,000
Subcontractor	Construction Contractor	$145,000
Subcontractor	Revegetation Specialist	$102,000
Subcontractor	Revegetation Specialist	$2,000
Subcontractor	Construction Contractor	$3,000
Personnel	FTE: 0.4	$23,700
Fringe		$7,100
Travel		$1,000
Indirect		$2,450
Subcontractor	Fisheries Monitoring Consultant	$8,000
Subcontractor	Professional Surveyor	$5,000
Subcontractor	Water Quality Monitoring Consultant	$14,000
Subcontractor	Revegetation Monitoring Consultant	$6,000
		$570,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$570,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$570,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$570,000
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

n/a

Reason for change in scope

n/a

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: no

Date:
Jul 14, 2000

Comment:

There is no change in scope or budget. The funding in FY 2000 was reduced due to budget limitations within the Idaho SRT.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 13, 2000

Comment:

Rationale: Budget increase inappropriate in this review.

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
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