Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-268-00 - Idaho Watershed Habitat Restoration-Custer District Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-268-00 - Idaho Watershed Habitat Restoration-Custer District

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2007-268-00
Title:
Idaho Watershed Habitat Restoration-Custer District
Summary:
The project scope is to implement high priority action items to maintain, enhance and restore fish habitat and fish passage in the priority stream segments of the Upper Salmon Basin area within the administrative boundaries of the Custer Soil and Water Conservation District.

Implementation of measures funded under this plan will achieve the objective of the Northwest Power Planning Council's Strategy for Salmon Recovery, the National Marine Fisheries Service Salmon Recovery Plan in terms of stabilizing and improving habitat for anadromous fish and the "Four Governors Salmon Recovery Recommendations for Salmon Recovery". Migratory and habitat connectivity across the watershed's valley bottom areas is of high importance to ecologically-based restoration efforts because the tributary sub-watersheds tend to be dominated by federal lands and often provide habitat strongholds for native species of fish and wildlife.

Key habitat limitations in the watershed' s bottomland areas include migration problems/ blockages and streambed sedimentation. Addressing these limitations may offer an opportunity to enhance the watershed' s anadromous salmonids and will clearly benefit other native species of salmonids, other fish, and wildlife. The primary opportunity for addressing these problems in the Pahsimeroi, East Fork and Upper Salmon watersheds is through the CSWCD and their collaborative efforts on non-federal land.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) (SWCD)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2019
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Salmon 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 80.0%   Resident: 20.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
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 *
FY2018 (Previous) $346,706 $346,706 $143,404 $181,902 $277,541

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $346,706 $143,404 $181,902 $277,541
FY2019 (Current) $285,000 $0 $11,031 $11,602

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $285,000 $0 $11,031 $11,602
FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $346,706 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $285,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Nov 30th SOY Transfers 12/07/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 (Draft)
2017 $105,000 23 %
2016 $170,000 33 %
2015 $1,090,000 56 %
2014 $772,179 70 %
2013 $587,000 67 %
2012 $391,000 54 %
2011 $128,000 8 %
2010
2009 $178,900 35 %
2008 $317,000 49 %
2007 $455,000 (Draft) 65 % (Draft)

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-005497 Bonneville Power Administration Conservation Easements Active $0 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006074 Bonneville Power Administration FY2012 Placeholder Active $0 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
76599 SOW Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 2007-268-00 EXP IDAHO WATERSHED HABITAT RESTORATION Issued $346,706 8/1/2017 - 9/25/2018
80455 SOW Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 2007-268-00 EXP IDAHO WATERSHED HABITAT RESTORATION Issued $143,404 9/26/2018 - 9/25/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:59
On time:45
Avg Days Late:0

Historical from: 1999-019-00
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
6116 24568, 32493, 37879, 44104 1999-019-00 RESTORE SALMON RIVER AREA - CSWCD Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 08/2001 08/2001 History 25 29 2 0 0 31 100.00% 7
BPA-003095 Conservation Easements Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
BPA-004691 Conservation Easements Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Project Totals 84 143 2 0 21 166 87.35% 18


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
31096 37919, 43501, 49514, 55535, 59926, 63589, 68920, 72367, 76599, 80455 2007-268-00 EXP IDAHO WATERSHED HABITAT RESTORATION-CUSTER Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 01/2007 01/2007 Issued 51 105 0 0 19 124 84.68% 3
49234 54224 2007-268-00 EXP RESTORE 12 MILE REACH OF UPPER SALMON RIVER Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/2010 09/2010 Closed 8 9 0 0 2 11 81.82% 3
Project Totals 84 143 2 0 21 166 87.35% 18


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-268-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2007-268-00 - Idaho Watershed Habitat Restoration-Custer District
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2007-268-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #1 and #2 in future reviews. Sponsor to address ISRP qualification #3 in contracting. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4).
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #1 and #2 in future reviews.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #1 and #2 in future reviews.
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—Sponsor to address ISRP qualification #3 in contracting.
Council Condition #4 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #4—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4).
Council Condition #5 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #4).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-268-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2007-268-00 - Idaho Watershed Habitat Restoration-Custer District
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2007-268-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The written proposal could have been improved by including a summary of scores by the Expert Panel and Upper Salmon Basin Technical Team for benefits from past actions taken by the sponsor, together with a more thorough explanation of how restoration of the proposed streams is expected to improve population status of steelhead trout, spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, and west-slope cutthroat trout. The ISRP would also have appreciated a discussion of how increasing abundance of steelhead and spring Chinook in the target reaches and streams would improve the viability status of specific independent populations within Major Population Groups of each ESU.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal refers to general needs for ESA-listed Chinook and steelhead populations as identified by the Expert Panel Process for the 2008/2010 FCRPS BiOp, the Salmon Subbasin Plan, and the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. However, the background does not demonstrate the regional significance of the proposed projects. Reference to the subbasin plan is very general, identifying elements in the plan that are consistent with the proposed actions, rather than selecting actions in specific locations identified in the plan.

The problem statement begins appropriately by mentioning the number of anadromous salmonid populations in the Upper Salmon Watershed but does not provide a coherent description of current status and factors limiting population viability. The statement should establish the relevance of the restoration sites including Pole Creek and Garden Creek to the Viable Salmon Population parameters of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution, for spring Chinook and steelhead, and indicate how restoration at these locations will help meet the RPA 35 obligations and subbasin plan goals. The statement should then summarize the limiting factors and confirm these are based on watershed assessments; summarize the proposed actions to correct the limiting factors; and provide predictions of quantitative benefits in habitat and salmon VSP parameters. As it is, the proposal does not demonstrate that the tributaries to be restored would contribute much in terms of ESA viability for spring Chinook or steelhead or restoration of fisheries. Instead, the text describes components of the proposal with vague references to limiting conditions and streamflow objectives. Improving habitat conditions in lower reaches of tributaries is likely important, but the choice of tributaries for restoration is as important. The sites should provide restored conditions that are resilient and self-sustaining under the existing and anticipated landscape uses including recreation and grazing.

Much of the text on page 4 is misplaced in that it describes project relationships and is redundant to the same text that is repeated under Additional Relationships on page 12.

The objectives as written are not clearly defined. Some of the text within the objectives would be more appropriate as part of the problem statement. It seems that essentially the three objectives are: increase water flow, remove barriers to fish passage, and improve water quality. Note that TAURUS instructs sponsors to state objectives in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements or tasks. Objectives 1 and 3 lack criteria for success.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The narrative provided does not completely answer the questions posed in the proposal form to list accomplishments, relate them to objectives, identify previous proposal objectives/deliverables, comment on whether they were accomplished, and finally, provide an evaluation of whether the deliverables achieved the objectives and restoration goals.

The CSWCD has worked with IDFG to provide alternative infrastructure for irrigation flows, and IDFG has then modified or removed barriers accordingly. These joint efforts have reconnected flow to Duck Creek, Muddy Springs Creek, Patterson/Big Springs Creek below the #3 diversion, and provided 41 cfs instream flows in Patterson/Big Springs Creek and Pahsimeroi River. Efforts to open access to new spawning habitat in Patterson and Big Springs creeks were successful almost immediately. In 2009 IDFG found 69 redds above the P-9 cross ditch where only two had been found in previous years.

Also, through this project, the CSWCD has fenced areas of the lower Pahsimeroi River providing approximately 4 additional miles of riparian protection and enhancement to reduce temperatures and sediment and worked with landowners and partner agencies to increase vegetation by willow plantings. In the Upper Salmon, including East Fork, one diversion was removed on each of Elk Creek, Challis Creek, and Lyon Creek, and fencing was added along Challis Creek and Lyon Creek to further enhance and protect those systems.

Unfortunately, there is no evaluation of the extent to which habitat conditions have been improved and whether the completed work has yielded improvements in salmon VSP parameters. While the actual monitoring may be completed through other projects, or under the auspices of the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project, the results should have been incorporated into this proposal to justify continuing small tributary habitat restoration.

The text under Adaptive Management describes decision making for this project but does not provide much evidence of adaptive management. The sponsor discusses changes in approach and location of restoration actions over the past decade or so. The approach has shifted from actions to address specific issues such as fencing, to broader efforts to address multiple issues that interact within a watershed such as water diversions, fish screens, riparian fencing and stream reconnection. Past efforts have been largely in agricultural areas along lower tributary streams, but recent efforts are expanding to non-agricultural tributaries. Whether enough has been accomplished in small tributaries in agricultural lands or whether there is a lack of opportunity with existing landowners is not discussed. The whole watershed approach to restoration is an important aspect of the sponsors' strategy and more discussion is needed within the technical background.

This project has addressed limiting factors including inadequate water flows, high water temperatures, lack of streamside vegetation, high sediment levels, and physical barriers in the Upper Salmon and Pahsimeroi rivers.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Relationships with project partners are adequately described. The sponsor's ability to negotiate and work with private landowners and water users is probably the chief strength of this proposal.

Under Focal Species, Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook is incorrectly shown as “not listed” rather than “threatened.”

Two emerging limiting factors, a decline in marine-derived nutrients and climate change, are discussed. Activities that directly affect natural channel processes that attenuate these emerging limiting factors are said to be “highly valued and pursued." The sponsor also provides under Large Habitat Project a brief explanation of the solicitation, review, and prioritization process which involves both the Upper Salmon Basin Technical Team and the Action Agency Expert Panel.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The 10 deliverables generally provide adequate detail about the work to be done. The last deliverable, Improve passage and flows in the Upper Salmon Basin, is vague and appears to include miscellaneous activities additional to deliverables 1-9.

The rules for minimum downstream flow regimes (18, 12 or 15 cfs) specified in DELV-1 and repeated in DELV-2 are confusing and appear inconsistent.

It is not possible to assess whether the proposed work will be sufficient to achieve the project's objectives and restoration goals because benefits are not estimated and limiting factors are not clearly summarized in earlier sections of the proposal. Costs for some items, such as bridges, seem rather low. Without a more detailed summary, it is not possible to fully evaluate whether the deliverables can be met.

RM&E protocols are not identified in the proposal so it is not clear how the proposed work, or past work, is incorporated into Upper Salmon Basin habitat effectiveness monitoring. The IDFG monitoring efforts to date were described during the site visits and provided reassurance to the ISRP. However, the planned termination of the Idaho Supplementation Study in 2014 raises some additional concern and is identified elsewhere as a programmatic issue.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Although portions of the written proposal need improvement, the site visits and presentations enabled the ISRP to understand the scope, significance, and justification for the proposed work, and its linkage with other important projects. Accordingly, the ISRP is not seeking a response at this time, but the following comments and qualifications should be addressed during contracting and in future proposals.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Clarify the problem statement to indicate what populations are at risk and why.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
Clarify the objectives, including criteria for success.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
Describe any benefits to fish population status and trends that have been observed, or can reasonably be inferred, and that are attributed to activities in this project.
Qualification #4 - Qualification #4
Describe provisions for monitoring and evaluation of benefits, and for adaptive management in the longer term.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

The written proposal could have been improved by including a summary of scores by the Expert Panel and Upper Salmon Basin Technical Team for benefits from past actions taken by the sponsor, together with a more thorough explanation of how restoration of the proposed streams is expected to improve population status of steelhead trout, spring Chinook salmon, bull trout, and west-slope cutthroat trout. The ISRP would also have appreciated a discussion of how increasing abundance of steelhead and spring Chinook in the target reaches and streams would improve the viability status of specific independent populations within Major Population Groups of each ESU.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal refers to general needs for ESA-listed Chinook and steelhead populations as identified by the Expert Panel Process for the 2008/2010 FCRPS BiOp, the Salmon Subbasin Plan, and the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. However, the background does not demonstrate the regional significance of the proposed projects. Reference to the subbasin plan is very general, identifying elements in the plan that are consistent with the proposed actions, rather than selecting actions in specific locations identified in the plan.

The problem statement begins appropriately by mentioning the number of anadromous salmonid populations in the Upper Salmon Watershed but does not provide a coherent description of current status and factors limiting population viability. The statement should establish the relevance of the restoration sites including Pole Creek and Garden Creek to the Viable Salmon Population parameters of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution, for spring Chinook and steelhead, and indicate how restoration at these locations will help meet the RPA 35 obligations and subbasin plan goals. The statement should then summarize the limiting factors and confirm these are based on watershed assessments; summarize the proposed actions to correct the limiting factors; and provide predictions of quantitative benefits in habitat and salmon VSP parameters. As it is, the proposal does not demonstrate that the tributaries to be restored would contribute much in terms of ESA viability for spring Chinook or steelhead or restoration of fisheries. Instead, the text describes components of the proposal with vague references to limiting conditions and streamflow objectives. Improving habitat conditions in lower reaches of tributaries is likely important, but the choice of tributaries for restoration is as important. The sites should provide restored conditions that are resilient and self-sustaining under the existing and anticipated landscape uses including recreation and grazing.

Much of the text on page 4 is misplaced in that it describes project relationships and is redundant to the same text that is repeated under Additional Relationships on page 12.

The objectives as written are not clearly defined. Some of the text within the objectives would be more appropriate as part of the problem statement. It seems that essentially the three objectives are: increase water flow, remove barriers to fish passage, and improve water quality. Note that TAURUS instructs sponsors to state objectives in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements or tasks. Objectives 1 and 3 lack criteria for success.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The narrative provided does not completely answer the questions posed in the proposal form to list accomplishments, relate them to objectives, identify previous proposal objectives/deliverables, comment on whether they were accomplished, and finally, provide an evaluation of whether the deliverables achieved the objectives and restoration goals.

The CSWCD has worked with IDFG to provide alternative infrastructure for irrigation flows, and IDFG has then modified or removed barriers accordingly. These joint efforts have reconnected flow to Duck Creek, Muddy Springs Creek, Patterson/Big Springs Creek below the #3 diversion, and provided 41 cfs instream flows in Patterson/Big Springs Creek and Pahsimeroi River. Efforts to open access to new spawning habitat in Patterson and Big Springs creeks were successful almost immediately. In 2009 IDFG found 69 redds above the P-9 cross ditch where only two had been found in previous years.

Also, through this project, the CSWCD has fenced areas of the lower Pahsimeroi River providing approximately 4 additional miles of riparian protection and enhancement to reduce temperatures and sediment and worked with landowners and partner agencies to increase vegetation by willow plantings. In the Upper Salmon, including East Fork, one diversion was removed on each of Elk Creek, Challis Creek, and Lyon Creek, and fencing was added along Challis Creek and Lyon Creek to further enhance and protect those systems.

Unfortunately, there is no evaluation of the extent to which habitat conditions have been improved and whether the completed work has yielded improvements in salmon VSP parameters. While the actual monitoring may be completed through other projects, or under the auspices of the Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project, the results should have been incorporated into this proposal to justify continuing small tributary habitat restoration.

The text under Adaptive Management describes decision making for this project but does not provide much evidence of adaptive management. The sponsor discusses changes in approach and location of restoration actions over the past decade or so. The approach has shifted from actions to address specific issues such as fencing, to broader efforts to address multiple issues that interact within a watershed such as water diversions, fish screens, riparian fencing and stream reconnection. Past efforts have been largely in agricultural areas along lower tributary streams, but recent efforts are expanding to non-agricultural tributaries. Whether enough has been accomplished in small tributaries in agricultural lands or whether there is a lack of opportunity with existing landowners is not discussed. The whole watershed approach to restoration is an important aspect of the sponsors' strategy and more discussion is needed within the technical background.

This project has addressed limiting factors including inadequate water flows, high water temperatures, lack of streamside vegetation, high sediment levels, and physical barriers in the Upper Salmon and Pahsimeroi rivers.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Relationships with project partners are adequately described. The sponsor's ability to negotiate and work with private landowners and water users is probably the chief strength of this proposal.

Under Focal Species, Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook is incorrectly shown as “not listed” rather than “threatened.”

Two emerging limiting factors, a decline in marine-derived nutrients and climate change, are discussed. Activities that directly affect natural channel processes that attenuate these emerging limiting factors are said to be “highly valued and pursued." The sponsor also provides under Large Habitat Project a brief explanation of the solicitation, review, and prioritization process which involves both the Upper Salmon Basin Technical Team and the Action Agency Expert Panel.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The 10 deliverables generally provide adequate detail about the work to be done. The last deliverable, Improve passage and flows in the Upper Salmon Basin, is vague and appears to include miscellaneous activities additional to deliverables 1-9.

The rules for minimum downstream flow regimes (18, 12 or 15 cfs) specified in DELV-1 and repeated in DELV-2 are confusing and appear inconsistent.

It is not possible to assess whether the proposed work will be sufficient to achieve the project's objectives and restoration goals because benefits are not estimated and limiting factors are not clearly summarized in earlier sections of the proposal. Costs for some items, such as bridges, seem rather low. Without a more detailed summary, it is not possible to fully evaluate whether the deliverables can be met.

RM&E protocols are not identified in the proposal so it is not clear how the proposed work, or past work, is incorporated into Upper Salmon Basin habitat effectiveness monitoring. The IDFG monitoring efforts to date were described during the site visits and provided reassurance to the ISRP. However, the planned termination of the Idaho Supplementation Study in 2014 raises some additional concern and is identified elsewhere as a programmatic issue.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Although portions of the written proposal need improvement, the site visits and presentations enabled the ISRP to understand the scope, significance, and justification for the proposed work, and its linkage with other important projects. Accordingly, the ISRP is not seeking a response at this time, but the following comments and qualifications should be addressed during contracting and in future proposals.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:40:18 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-268-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-268-00 - Idaho Watershed Habitat Restoration-Custer District
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: With available funding the recommendation is to fund at $250,000 per year for work in the Pahsimeroi.
Assessment Number: 1999-019-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1999-019-00 - Restore 12 Mile Reach of Upper Salmon River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-268-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-268-00 - Idaho Watershed Habitat Restoration-Custer District
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Much work has already been carried out, and this proposal should be a continuation of the effort (although stated as a new project), but the impression given is that no details need be included because the need is so obvious. To make a final recommendation, the ISRP needs a response giving further details, particularly of those work elements without metrics, to help enable a recommendation for funding. What is the priority in the shopping list of strategies (pg 2, pg 5)? Did these arise from the subbasin plan?

The proposal lists general benefits related to the biological objectives and the work elements are related to the biological objectives, but the response should include more details. Specifically, not many metrics are included in the work elements

Actions undertaken within the project will include monitoring and evaluation plans. Monitoring and evaluation over the past four years has been contracted through Project # 199202603 - but this is not an M&E project. Please describe the M&E for biological response.

A response should include mention of specialist expertise needed to conduct the proposed tasks, e.g., for the geomorphic study needed regarding reconnection of floodplains. If the BoR $200,000 is to be spent on such work, that should have been stated.

Information transfer is by implication only. No details are given.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 1999-019-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1999-019-00 - Restore 12 Mile Reach of Upper Salmon River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-268-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-268-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration activities; multiple other entities potentially authorized/required to conduct.
Assessment Number: 1999-019-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1999-019-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Appears to be BPA funding for Army Corps flood control project, and BPA funding is for work the Corps is authorized/required to perform; query whether cost share sufficient. Upon review, COTR corrections as to nature of project (BPA funds acquisitions, Corps performs restoration, cost share is appropriate). Rating changed from "2.3" to "2.1."

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-268-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-268-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 1999-019-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1999-019-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 1999-019-00 effective on 9/14/2010
Relationship Description: Cost share effort with Corp of Engineers did not work out; so planned, unspent funds are moved to project 2007-268-00 to implement on-the-ground restoration activities on an existing easement which addresses limiting factors on ESA-listed fish.


Name Role Organization
Karma Bragg Project Lead Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Ted O'Neal (Inactive) Supervisor Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Jennifer Lord Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Robert Shull Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Dorothy Welch Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration