FY 2000 proposal 199401700

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
199401700 Narrative	Narrative
199401700 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Projects
Proposal ID	199401700
Organization	Lemhi and Custer Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Lemhi SWCD/Custer SWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Glenn Seaberg, Project Coordinator
Mailing address	206 Van Dreff Ste A Salmon, ID 83467
Phone / email	2087566322 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	To 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 species	Snake 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

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.
1996	Two canals eliminated from the Salmon River through consolidation into Challis Irrigation Canal.
1996	Two ranches on East Fork constructed riparian enhancement fences 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.
1997	Reset pipe on old L-5 diversion to provide off-channel rearing habitat.
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.
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 dam.
1998	Riparian fence along 0.90 miles of the upper Lemhi River and Texas Creek.
1998	Riparian fence along 1.2 miles of Hayden Creek.
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 ID	Title	Description
9202603	Model Watershed Coordination and Administration/Implementation Support	Directly supports the Model Watershed project coordinator, office coordinator, office space, and equipment.
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	Project Planner (2088 hrs x $16/hr)	$33,408
Fringe	Planner Health Benefits (7.7% of Salary)	$2,572
Supplies	Construction materials for fences, bank barbs, plantings, and irrigation improvements	$309,954
Operating	Landowner responsibility	$0
NEPA	20 projects @ $300	$6,000
Travel	Planner Travel 1,550 miles x $0.31/mile Boise, ID $95/day x 3 days Challis, ID $90/day x 8 tri	$1,486
Indirect	5% SWCD Overhead	$20,000
Other	Monitoring and evaluation / GIS	$10,000
Subcontractor	Technical Support 640 hours x $11/hr x 2 people Archeological Clearances	$16,580
		$400,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$400,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$400,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash 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: 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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Fund for one year

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

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: This project supports anadromous and resident fish habitat protection and restoration. There is evidence of good collaboration with agencies and landowners.

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 virtually 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, they that section should present the scientific basis for the project. The proposal pays mentions "holistic" watershed management, but doesn't detail describe in detail how the concept plays enters into its objectives or tasks. The "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. The methods listed are generic only, and give no indication of the activities planned for FY2000.

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" on this project and on project 9401700 and on project 9306200.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

BPA contracting splits the Id. Model WS effort (9202603, 9306200, 9401700)

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Section 3 should include links to the umbrella plan for Salmon River subbasin.

Project has been in operation since 1994 and should more fully demonstrate that it is meeting its biological objectives. Section 4 provides a good history but what are tangible measures of success? Fishery improvements? Milestones? How much mitigation has been achieved?

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.)

The proposal is better written this year than last year and provides more justification.

Isn't the coordinator's salary funded by another agency?

Good cost share percentage.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

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

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:
$1,135,632	$1,135,632	$1,135,632

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website