Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1992-026-03 - Model Watershed Studies - Lemh Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1992-026-03 - Model Watershed Studies - Lemh
Project Number:
1992-026-03
Title:
Model Watershed Studies - Lemh
Summary:
To provide local coordination, guidance, and implementation of on-the-ground projects that improve and enhance anadromous and resident fish habitat and fish passage.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1993
Ending FY:
2009
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Salmon 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
Regional Coordination
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Smallmouth
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Tags:
None
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2017

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
3955 SOW University of Idaho 1992-026-03 TECH. OVERSIGHT & COORDINATION FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM History $71,779 3/1/2001 - 6/30/2002
5353 SOW Idaho Soil Conservation Commission 1992-026-03 IDAHO MODEL WATERSHED ADMIN/SUPPORT History $839,099 7/1/2001 - 9/30/2004
6321 SOW University of Idaho 1999-069-00 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM REVIEW SALMON R. SUBBASIN History $25,967 8/21/2001 - 11/30/2003
19846 SOW Idaho Soil Conservation Commission 1992-026-03 IDAHO MODEL WATERSHED ADMINISTRATION History $505,040 10/1/2004 - 6/30/2006



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):2
Completed:1
On time:1
Status Reports
Completed:5
On time:4
Avg Days Early:1

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
5353 19846 1992-026-03 IDAHO MODEL WATERSHED ADMIN/SUPPORT Idaho Soil Conservation Commission 07/2001 07/2001 History 5 9 0 0 0 9 100.00% 0
Project Totals 5 9 0 0 0 9 100.00% 0


Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1992-026-03-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1992-026-03
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Multiple habitat-related activities; multiple other entities may be authorized/required; need screening or other criteria to ensure BPA no funding activities others required to perform; need confirmation that cost share is appropriate.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-03-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1992-026-03
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-03-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1992-026-03 - Model Watershed Studies - Lemh
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proposal and response materials for this longstanding project (now downsized to include only the Lemhi SWCD area) report the tasks accomplished but do not give reviewers a clear picture of the extent to which those tasks have improved habitat conditions and/or fish populations. Also still unclear is how far along they are in meeting their long-term goals, how much have they accomplished, and how much needs to be done.

In response to past ISRP comments, project staff in a previous proposal committed to develop a more unified monitoring and evaluation program. Yet the current proposal and response make it clear that project personnel are struggling with M&E, as discussed below.

The question of where they are in the overall model watershed plan has not been satisfactorily answered, especially in any quantitative sense. Projects ready for implementation in FY 07 should be funded as well as administrative efforts focused on monitoring, including developing and using an analysis approach that would allow a substantive assessment of the entire project's success in terms of benefits to fish. Technical lessons learned should be summarized. Funding beyond FY 07 should be dependent upon evidence that the project is focused on realizing the greatest benefit for the resources invested and is using appropriate effectiveness monitoring through the analysis and adaptive management phases. Comments below are intended as constructive criticism. Reviewers note that considerable assistance in dealing with these M&E problems should be forthcoming from the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) project 200301700 that is doing work in the Upper Salmon. Its scope is the design and evaluation of monitoring tools for salmon populations and habitat in the Interior Columbia River Basin.

The Project Monitoring Report for FY 05 that was included in the response did provide some specifics that contrast with the generalities in the proposal. The project has largely divorced itself from fish, using the rationale that anadromous fish in the watershed are controlled by out-of-basin factors. "Habitat" becomes the surrogate, perhaps not inappropriately. But rather than being applied to aquatic habitat that is valuable for resident salmonids (and thus for anadromous fish rearing in future if runs increase), the term "habitat" has become a nebulous entity. The key attributes for salmonids that are vital and easily measured (like maximum water depth and bank shading) were not recorded. The Project Monitoring Report examined 16 sites funded by BPA. Most were riparian fencing, presumably a subsample of the approximately 50 miles of fencing that the proposal indicates have been installed since 1994. Information was gathered by photo monitoring, greenline survey, and "datasheets." This approach appears reasonable if amended as described above. It was clear from the report that such monitoring is in its embryonic stage. Absent was any summary of what worked and what did not, and any discussion of why. Reviewers could see no evidence that such a report was integrated into the project to help direct future efforts.

The current plan includes some pre-project monitoring, implementation monitoring in year 1, then monitoring every 5 years for 10 and 15 year contracts. This means only a few views of a project. No end-of-project monitoring is described, nor any planned response if results are not satisfactory, or if unanticipated opportunities arise. Page 18 of the response says, "Analysis has not yet been determined." Yet this is the key element of adaptive management, suggesting that the entire point of monitoring has been missed.

Salmon data provided do not show clear separation between wilderness stream redds (Big Creek) and the Lemhi but this is the kind of comparison that should help provide an assessment of the habitat treatment protocols used in the Lemhi Basin. The sponsors produced what seems to be an honest assessment of data for fish abundance before and after the habitat work was implemented. Comparison of redds in other non-treated basins and the Lemhi Basin is not perfect in that they cannot eliminate the possibility that out-of-basin effects are different for populations in these basins; assessment efforts should include consideration of the probability of this alternative. In addition, the fish data show no benefit of the habitat work, so at least three alternative explanations are possible; (1) the habitat work has not been effective in increasing productivity, (2) the work that has been done is nowhere near enough to cause increased productivity, or (3) the wrong changes were implemented. Sponsors have the responsibility to sort out these and other explanations for the apparent absence of a response.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-026-03-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1992-026-03 - Model Watershed Studies - Lemh
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Budget reduction addresses the elimanation of coordination activities to Custer SWCD, and the reduction in staffing needed to implement coordination activities to Lemhi SWCD.

Project Relationships: This project Merged To 2007-394-00 effective on 2/26/2007
Relationship Description: Funds and associated work for coordination, planning, design and implementation is moved from 1992-026-03 to 2007-394-00.


Name Role Organization
Jan Brady (Inactive) Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Russell Knight (Inactive) Technical Contact Idaho Soil Conservation Commission
Jerry Nicolescu (Inactive) Supervisor Idaho Soil Conservation Commission
Katie Slavin (Inactive) Administrative Contact Idaho Soil Conservation Commission
Rae Griffeth (Inactive) Bonneville Power Administration
Mickey Carter (Inactive) Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration