FY 2001 Ongoing proposal 199306200

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
NameKatie Slavin
Mailing address206 Van Dreff Ste A Salmon ID 83467
Phone / email2087566322 / kslavin@agri.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this projectJohn Folsom
Review cycleFY 2001 Ongoing
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionThe goal is to balance resource protection and land use practices to provide barrier free passage for adult and juvenile fishes, and increase subbasin connectivity by returning surplus irrigation water to tributaries and mainstem systems.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS/BPA Action 149 NMFS BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1994 Siphon completed to reconnect Carmen Creek to the mainstem Salmon River
1995 Point of diversion transferred from the Pahsimeroi River to the Salmon River
1995 Two diversions eliminated on the Lemhi River with a combined savings of 1600 acre feet of water
1995 Seven irrigation diversions consolidated into three irrigation diversions on the Lemhi River
1996 Two canals eliminated from the Salmon River through consolidation into Challis Irrigation Canal
1996 Diversions EF-7 and EF-8 consolidated on the East Fork Salmon River
1997 Completed L-3a diversion structure and bypass system on Lemhi River
1997 Construction of 2.7 miles of fence along 1.2 miles of the East Fork Salmon River and conversion of 308 acres of pasture and hayland converted to center-pivot irrigation system.
1997 Abandonment of L-2b diversion from Lemhi River and water right transfer to spring and conversion to pump irrigation for 40 acres
1998 A fish passage barrier was removed and log wiers and new headgates were constructed
1998 At L-8a diversion, a headgate, wasteway, and vortex wier were installed to facilitate fish passage and eliminate gravel push up dams on the Lemhi River
1998 Sprinkler system installed from Pine Creek, a tributary to the East Fork Salmon River
1999 Pattee Creek siphon constructed to pass Lemhi water in L-31 canal under the creek
1999 Pipeline and sprinkler systems were installed to allow more efficient management of irrigation water on 540 acres and allow approximately 3 cfs of water to reconnect habitat on Canyon Creek, a tributary to the Lemhi River
1999 Consolidation of two canals into one on the Salmon River

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Address connectivity issues to enhance passage for anadromous fish a. continue to work with IDFG Screen Shop to design improved diversions, b. continue to identify and consolidate possible excess ditches and canals to enhance fish passage $18,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2002FY 2003
$25,000$30,000$20,000$25,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Provide barrier free passage for juvenile and adult anadromous fish a. continue screen and improve irrigation diversions, b. continue inventory and mapping of fish barriers $43,000
Restore anadromous and resident fish habitat due to temporary dewatering a. continue to pursue reconnection of tributaries to mainstem systems $105,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2002FY 2003
$250,000$300,000$200,000$250,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Preserve investment in projects Continue to develop adaptive management tools $10,000
Preserve investment in projects Maintain and modify existing projects as needed $8,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2002FY 2003
$30,000$35,000$20,000$25,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Collect monitoring data , coordinate data from other agency monitoring programs a. Continue use of agency fish monitoring and other monitoring as recommended by TAC b. fish passage assessment will include aerial imagery, on the ground mapping and surveys of passage for adult and juvenile fishes $8,000
Analysis and interpretation of data a. data will be incorporated into MWP database $8,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2002FY 2003
$30,000$35,000$20,000$25,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Supplies $4,000
Indirect 5% SWCD overhead $900
Subcontractor IDFG Screen Shop $13,100
Indirect 5% SWCD overhead $7,400
Subcontractor $140,600
Supplies $4,500
Indirect 5% SWCD overhead $900
Subcontractor $12,600
Supplies $7,000
Indirect 5% SWCD overhead $800
Subcontractor $8,200
$200,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$200,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$200,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$100,000
% change from forecast100.0%
Reason for change in estimated budget

In an effort to take a more holistic approach The Model Watershed Project, in response to NPPC and ISRP evaluation, plans to expand the MWP boundaries from three watersheds to the entire Upper Salmon subbasin. In response to ISRP's comments, site specific restoration plans give the guidance in restoring physical processes for fish migration habitat restoration.

Reason for change in scope

Model Watershed boundaries enlarged to include Salmon subbasin from headwaters to mouth of the Middle Fork Salmon River

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: no
Date:
Jul 14, 2000

Comment:

In an effort to take a more holistic approach, the Model Watershed Project, in response to NWPPC and ISRP evaluation, plans to expand the MWP boundaries from three watersheds to the entire Upper Salmon Subbasin. In response to ISRP's comments, site specific restoration plans give the guidance in restoring physical processes for fish migration habitat restoration. The budget increase is mostly due to an increase in construction costs and some additional planning efforts. Also, monitoring and evaluation will be stepped up.

The increase in scope is because the Model Watershed boundaries have enlarged to include Salmon Subbasin from its headwaters to the mouth of the Middle Fork Salmon River.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000

Comment:

Rationale: Budget increase inappropriate in this review. Project has $50,000 remaining uncontracted from FY 2000.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: