Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
|
| Section 1: General Administrative Information |
| Process Information: |
| Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized |
Status |
Form Generator |
| January 9, 2006 |
Finalized |
Karma Bragg |
|
|
| Proposal Type: |
Ongoing |
| Proposal Number: |
199901900 |
| Proposal Name: |
Restore Salmon River (Challis, Idaho) |
| BPA Project Manager: |
Gerald McClintock |
| Agency, Institution or Organization: |
Custer County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) |
| Short Description: |
Passive restoration by securing easements will assist restoration efforts via the Corps 206 Program. The development of side channels will help create a more naturally functioning floodplain, provide a wide array of environmental and ecological benefit. |
| Information Transfer: |
A web-site is currently maintained by the Corps for this project and is listed in the references section within the narritive. Custer SWCD will provide status reports and metrics on completed projects that will be avialable through Pisces. |
| |
| Project Proposal Contacts |
| Contact |
Organization |
Address |
Phone/Email |
Roles |
Notes |
|
Form Submitter |
| Karma Bragg |
Custer Soil and Water Conservation District |
P. O. Box 305
Challis, Idaho 83226 |
Ph: 208-879-4428
Fax: 208-879-5903
Email: cswcd@custertel.net |
Form Submitter |
|
|
All Assigned Contacts |
| Karma Bragg |
Custer Soil and Water Conservation District |
P. O. Box 305
Challis, Idaho 83226 |
Ph: 208-879-4428
Fax: 208-879-5903
Email: cswcd@custertel.net |
Contract Manager
|
|
| Carl Christianson |
|
|
Ph:
Fax:
Email: carl.j.christianson@usace.army.mil |
Technical Contact
|
|
| Angela Dowling |
|
|
Ph:
Fax:
Email: aldowling@bpa.gov |
BPA Contracting Officer
|
|
| Ted O'Neal |
|
|
Ph:
Fax:
Email: tdoneal@custertel.net |
Administrative Contact
|
|
| Rick Philps |
Custer SWCD |
Challis, Idaho 83226 |
Ph: 208-879-2770
Fax:
Email: noemail@noemail.none |
Supervisor
|
Custer SWCD Contract Officer |
|
|
| Section 2: Project Location |
| Sponsor Province: |
Mountain Snake |
ARG Province: |
No Change |
| Sponsor Subbasin: |
Salmon |
ARG Subbasin: |
No Change |
| Location(s) at which the action will be implemented |
| Latitude |
Longitude |
Waterbody |
Location Description |
County/State |
Subbasin |
Primary? |
| 044 31
|
114 10
|
Salmon River |
Stark Easement |
Custer, Idaho |
Salmon |
Yes |
|
|
| Section 3: Focal Species |
| Focal Species: |
| Primary |
Secondary |
Additional Species |
Anadromous Fish
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Sockeye Snake River ESU
|
Bull Trout
Mountain Whitefish
Rainbow Trout
Resident Fish
Westslope Cutthroat
|
|
|
|
| Section 4: Past Accomplishments |
| Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project |
| Fiscal Year |
Accomplishments |
| 2005 |
Secured easement of approximately 180 acres. Assisted the Corps in securing cost share to complete feasibility study through 206 Appropriations Bill. Near completion of EA including public involvement/comments. Continued I&E with landowners & stakeholders |
| 2004 |
Completed updated appraisals for easement property. Invested time in final development of easement language. Continued work with US Army Corps to develop options on at least five properties within the reach. Assisted Corps with NEPA/Development of EA/BA. |
| 2003 |
Easement language review and development on one property including approximately 180 acres. Funding limitations prevented easement from moving forward, however, continued work with landowners kept landowners interested and willing. Rescheduled to 2004. |
| 2002 |
Completed Appraisals with two landowners for easement options inclusive of the Corps program to restore side channels and reduce temperatures within the reach. Continued landowner contacts and education of approximately 30 landowners within the reach. |
| 2001 |
Planning and solicitation for project funds, landowner meetings and easement development with landowners. Continued work with the Corps of Engineers to develop Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem projects. |
| 2000 |
Temperature monitoring data collected and cross section surveys completed to determine needs for "whole river plan" for this 12 mile reach of the river. Continued landowner contacts and information. Development of a hydrolodynamic model of the study reach |
| 1999 |
Stream-bank protection projects and fencing within the reach with technical support provided by Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Landowner contacts for future work. |
|
|
| Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects |
| Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source) |
| Funding Source |
Related ID |
Related Project Title |
Relationship |
| [Funding Source left blank] |
[no entry] |
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Project |
US Army Corps of Engineers will provide 65% cost share for this project in the development of feasibility, plans and specs and construction. The Corps Project is dependent on this funding to move forward. |
| BPA |
199401500 |
Idaho Fish Screening Improvement |
Installation of criteria screens within the river reach including coordinated effort to consolidate diversions in this reach. |
| BPA |
199401700 |
Idaho Model Watershed Habitat |
Project area is in the middle section of the Upper Salmon Basin. Projects implemented under this contract will enhance downstream projects. Upstream projects in Stanley and East Fork will enhance this project. |
|
|
| Section 6: Biological Objectives |
| Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project |
| Biological Objective |
Full Description |
Associated Subbasin Plan |
Strategy |
Page Nos |
| Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg |
Increase the number of pieces of LWD in reaches currently deficient, to volumes consistent with PFC rating. Improve pool:riffle ratios, Improve bank stability to property functioning conditions and rehabilitation of stream to reduce temperatures. |
Salmon |
Strategies 8-B1-3 Return channels to the floodplain/investigate feasibility and effectiveness of bio-engineering, monitor and evaluate actions, 8-C1-3 riparian plantings, ensure re-vegetation efforts, 17C 1-2 Control livestock, conduct land acquisitions |
46-47 |
| Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading |
Problem: The diversion of water for irrigation and its subsequent return, combined with reductions in riparian shading represent the primary factors contributing to increased temperatures in the mainstem Salmon from the 12-mile section upstream to Challis. |
Salmon |
Focus rehabilitation efforts on re-establishing properly functioning riparian areas, investigate wastewater management, rehab floodplain connectivity to provide thermal refugia, pasture management, ensure adequate temperature protection for fish. |
34 & 47 |
| Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios, |
Problem: Channel confinement and develop of riparian ares, from the 12-Mile section upstream to the headwaters, has caused a reduction in the pool:riffle ratio, a reduction in streambank stability, a reduction in shade, and has limited salmonid access to side channels. |
Salmon |
Strategies 8-B1-3 Return channels to the floodplain/investigate feasibility and effectiveness of bio-engineering, monitor and evaluate actions, 8-C1-3 riparian plantings, ensure re-vegetation efforts, 17C 1-2 Control livestock, conduct land acquisitions. |
34, 46-47 |
| Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability |
Problem: Channel confinement and develop of riparian ares, from the 12-Mile section upstream to the headwaters, has caused a reduction in the pool:riffle ratio, a reduction in streambank stability, a reduction in shade, and has limited salmonid access to side channels. |
Salmon |
Ensure continuation of the Salmon River Ecosystem Restoration Project (12-Mile Project) |
34, 60 |
| Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect |
Problem: Channel confinement and develop of riparian ares, from the 12-Mile section upstream to the headwaters, has caused a reduction in the pool:riffle ratio, a reduction in streambank stability, a reduction in shade, and has limited salmonid access to side channels. |
Salmon |
Control livestock access to encourage establishment of mature riparian vegetation. Conduct land acquisition and riparian conservation easements where possible and where some measurable benefits will occur. |
34, 60 |
|
|
| Section 7: Work Elements |
| Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives |
| Work Element Name |
Work Element Title |
Description |
Start Date |
End Date |
Estimated Budget |
| Land Audit |
BPA Internal use |
This is a BPA Internal-use only Work Element. BPA uses this work element to cover the hazardous material/Phase 1 work performed by BPA's Pollution Prevention and Abatement group, usually in support of land acquisitions. |
10/1/2006 |
9/30/2009 |
$7,500 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Land Purchase |
Obtain Conservation Easements |
Obtain Conservation Easements where possible and where some measurable benefits will occur. |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$1,186,320 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
* Start date of the purchase: 9/30/08
|
|
| Land Purchase |
TBL Work |
Appraisal review , escrow, survey |
10/1/2006 |
9/30/2009 |
$18,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
* End date of easement: 9/30/09
|
|
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation |
Potential easements |
Coordinate with Corps to Complete EC Documents |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$3,450 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Investigate Trespass |
Investigate Trespass on Easement Property |
Investigate Trespass on Properties secured in easement |
10/1/2006 |
9/30/2009 |
$8,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities |
Land Acquisition/Conservation Easements |
Secure Appraisals, Title Search, Title Insurance for Easement Properties |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$60,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Coordination |
Planning and Coordination |
Planning and Coordination Assistance to Corps and BPA in Project Development |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$108,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Identify and Select Projects |
Identify Project Opportunities in the 12-Mile Reach |
Identify and Select Project for development and review |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$32,500 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Manage and Administer Projects |
Manage and Administer Projects |
Manage and Administer Projects under BPA and Corps program |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$15,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Produce Annual Report |
FY05 Annual Reporting |
Produce Annual Reports |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$675 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
| Produce Pisces Status Report |
Reporting |
Produce Pisces Status Reports monthly |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2009 |
$1,440 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
Aquatic Objective 8A-D- Reduction in riparian veg
Aquatic Objective 16A: Riparian Shading
Aquatic Objective 17A: Pool; Riffle ratios,
Aquatic Objective 17B-Improve Bank Stability
Aquatic Objective 17C: Improve floodplain connect
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
|
|
| Section 8: Budget |
|
| Itemized Estimated Budget |
| Item |
Note |
FY 2007 Cost |
FY 2008 Cost |
FY 2009 Cost |
| Personnel |
Project Manager |
$33,500 |
$33,500 |
$33,500 |
| Fringe Benefits |
Project Manager |
$10,395 |
$10,395 |
$10,395 |
| Travel |
Project Manager and Board |
$4,000 |
$4,000 |
$4,000 |
| Supplies |
Office Supplies/Postage |
$1,200 |
$1,200 |
$1,200 |
| Overhead |
Rent/Office Space |
$5,200 |
$5,200 |
$5,200 |
| Other |
Sub-Contracts Survey/Title Search/Appraisals |
$20,000 |
$20,000 |
$20,000 |
| Other |
Cost Share, District secured easements |
$406,000 |
$406,000 |
$406,000 |
| Totals |
$480,295 |
$480,295 |
$480,295 |
|
|
| Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets |
| Total Itemized Budget | $1,440,885 |
| Total Work Element budget | $1,440,885 |
|
|
| Cost sharing |
| Funding Source or Organization |
Item or Service Provided |
FY 2007 Est Value ($) |
FY 2008 Est Value ($) |
FY 2009 Est Value ($) |
Cash or in-kind? |
Status |
| Corps of Engineers |
Feasibility Study, Construction |
$ 0 |
$575,000 |
$635,000 |
Cash |
Under Review |
| Corps of Engineers |
Feasibility Study |
$1,700,000 |
$200,000 |
$200,000 |
In-Kind |
Confirmed |
| Totals |
$1,700,000 |
$775,000 |
$835,000 |
|
|
|
| Section 9: Project Future |
| Project Future Costs and/or Termination |
| FY 2010 Est Budget |
FY 2011 Est Budget |
Comments |
| $300,000 |
$300,000 |
Conservation Easments, O&M and Investigate Tresspass on easement properties. |
| Future Operations & Maintenance Costs |
| Funding will be required for work element "investigate trespass". Additional properties could be secured within the next three years therefore requiring funds for conservation easements into out-year expenses |
| |
| Termination Date |
Comments |
| unknown |
CSWCD will continue to develop proposals for conservation easements as long as landowners express interest, projects are biologically feasible and funds are available. |
| |
| Final Deliverables |
| Conservation Easements, Final Reports |
|
|
| Section 10: Narrative |
|
|
|
Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
|
| Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results |
Account Type:
Both Capital and Expense |
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
|
Primary Focal Species
No Change |
| ARG Comments: |
BPA Capital/Expense Review Results (March 14, 2006) [Download full document]
|
Initial BPA Capital/Expense Determination (Subject to final review):
Expense -No anadromous fish crediting to meet requirements
|
| Primary Uncertainty for Capitalization: --- |
NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Type: | Expense |
| Budget Category: | ProvinceExpense |
| Recommendation: | Do Not Fund
|
| Comments: |
NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Category: | ProvinceExpense |
| Comments: |
|
Local or MSRT Comments: Project not prioritized
|
Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Not fundable
|
| NPCC Comments: This project has changed so much since the ISRP site visit and previous review that it is unrecognizable. Previous ISRP comments were "Fundable in part for study of the importance of temperature as the potential limiting factor in the proposed study reach and to pursue passive activities such as purchase of priority easements and fencing projects. Temperature modeling similar to that alluded to in items 5 & 6 of the response, as well as additional physical and biological watershed assessment, will be crucial in assessing potential benefits of the project, including components of the heavy construction work. It is clear that the agencies involved have indeed done a nice job in getting local landowners poised to ‘collaborate on a single vision and to consider the reach in a holistic sense.’ Unfortunately, it is not clear to the ISRP that enhancement of anadromous fish populations will necessarily follow from all of the tasks. A watershed assessment should indicate the priorities of tasks in this project. For example, if high stream temperature generated upstream is the key limiting factor, the heavily engineered approach proposed in the project may be secondary in priority. Evidence that this reach provides a number of high quality thermal refuges and assessment of the potential to provide more should be given. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation." Reviewers were concerned that extensive (expensive) active restoration efforts in this 12-mile section might be ineffective because of overwhelming water temperature constraints. Apparently some temp modeling was done, but no results seem to be given. Instead this has evolved to be a 35% cost-share for a heavily engineered rehab program with the US Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal lays out some benefits to control flooding, but the link to fish and wildlife is tenuous. Although the sponsors did temperature monitoring in 2002, they didn't analyze the data to justify the proposal. In other words, they've ignored the ISRP's recommendation from the province reviews and are seeking to acquire easements without assurance that benefits will accrue to fish and wildlife. Are reviewers to assume that they going to exclude grazing? What are they going to construct? What are their methods? What are they going to monitor? Is monitoring/project assessment left to others not mentioned here? Monitoring remains in the planning process. Apparently, to date (since 1999) $800k of BPA money has been spent and one 180-acre easement has been secured. |
Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Not fundable
|
| NPCC Comments: This project has changed so much since the ISRP site visit and previous review that it is unrecognizable. Previous ISRP comments were "Fundable in part for study of the importance of temperature as the potential limiting factor in the proposed study reach and to pursue passive activities such as purchase of priority easements and fencing projects. Temperature modeling similar to that alluded to in items 5 & 6 of the response, as well as additional physical and biological watershed assessment, will be crucial in assessing potential benefits of the project, including components of the heavy construction work. It is clear that the agencies involved have indeed done a nice job in getting local landowners poised to ‘collaborate on a single vision and to consider the reach in a holistic sense.’ Unfortunately, it is not clear to the ISRP that enhancement of anadromous fish populations will necessarily follow from all of the tasks. A watershed assessment should indicate the priorities of tasks in this project. For example, if high stream temperature generated upstream is the key limiting factor, the heavily engineered approach proposed in the project may be secondary in priority. Evidence that this reach provides a number of high quality thermal refuges and assessment of the potential to provide more should be given. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation." Reviewers were concerned that extensive (expensive) active restoration efforts in this 12-mile section might be ineffective because of overwhelming water temperature constraints. Apparently some temp modeling was done, but no results seem to be given. Instead this has evolved to be a 35% cost-share for a heavily-engineered rehab program with the US Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal lays out some benefits to control flooding, but the link to fish and wildlife is tenuous. Although the sponsors did temperature monitoring in 2002, they didn't analyze the data to justify the proposal. In other words, they've ignored the ISRP's recommendation from the province reviews and are seeking to acquire easements without assurance that benefits will accrue to fish and wildlife. Are reviewers to assume that they going to exclude grazing? What are they going to construct? What are their methods? What are they going to monitor? Is monitoring/project assessment left to others not mentioned here? Monitoring remains in the planning process. Apparently, to date (since 1999) $800k of BPA money has been spent and one 180 acre easement has been secured. |
Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.
