FY 2000 proposal 199202603
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 |
|---|---|
| 199202603 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199202603 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Idaho Model Watershed Administration/Implementation Support |
| Proposal ID | 199202603 |
| Organization | Idaho Soil Conservation Commission (SCC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Biff Burleigh |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0083 |
| Phone / email | 2083328652 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Provide 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 species | Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, 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 | 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 ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| 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 | 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 |
| $185,400 | ||
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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Comment:
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?
Comment:
Comment:
BPA contracting splits the Id. Model WS effort (9202603, 9306200, 9401700)Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
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?
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 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: |
| $356,458 | $356,458 | $356,458 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website