Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-603-00 - Pahsimeroi River Habitat Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-603-00 - Pahsimeroi River Habitat
Project Number:
2008-603-00
Title:
Pahsimeroi River Habitat
Summary:
This project is an expansion of the existing project 2007-268-000 and was identified early in the BPA State of Idaho MOA process as a high priority for inclusion. Both the IDF&G and the draft NOAAF recovery plans highlight the importance of carrying out habitat actions to assist this key salmon population. The Pahsimeroi River has a unique population of Snake River Chinook salmon, and in contrast with the Lemhi River and East Fork of the Salmon River watersheds, the salmon population in the Pahsimeroi River is a later migrating summer-run Chinook salmon rather than spring-run. Historically, spawning and rearing habitat was probably supported within the watershed for at least two federally –listed anadromous fish species, spring/summer Chinook salmon, and steelhead. (P. Murphy, 2008)

The Upper Salmon Watershed Project Technical Team, including IDFG Anadromous Fish Screen Program and Regional Fishery Management has prioritized the lower Pahsimeroi River and its major tributary, Patterson/Big Springs Creek, as SHIPUSS Priority I streams. Those are tributaries and river reaches that have the potential to realize immediate, tangible benefits to fish if recovery efforts are directed toward them. Goals in the lower Pahsimeroi River and Patterson/Big Springs Creek are to enhance migration in both streams by increasing flow regimes and reestablishing habitat connectivity to unused stream reaches. Mechanisms for attaining these goals focus on diversion consolidations and removal/alterations of diversions hindering fish passage. (P. Murphy, 2008)

At the request of the Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation (OSC) a technical panel with knowledge and expertise of project opportunities within the Pahsimeroi. This team included Paddy Murphy (Fisheries Biologist), Eric Leitzinger, Larry Weeks, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Morgan Case Idaho Department of Water Resources, Mark Olson, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Brian Hamilton, Bureau of Reclamation, Mark Davidson, Trout Unlimited, Michael Whitson, Bureau of Land Management Fisheries Biologist, Mike Edmondson, OSC and Karma Bragg, Custer Soil and Water Conservation Service. This core team identified the areas of Pahsimeroi with most potential for fisheries enhancement and recovery within the middle Pahsimeroi. Additional support and input is provided by the Custer Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors. The projects were predominantly in the mid to upper Pahsimeroi. Patterson/Big Springs Creek is a very important tributary for spawning and rearing of the unique population of Chinook salmon found in the Pahsimeroi. Continued opportunities to improve and enhance this area will be addressed in the project planning.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Salmon 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

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"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $1,157,483 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $1,171,952 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2022 Expense $1,186,601 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Extensions (State of Idaho) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
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
2020 (Draft)
2019 $203,416 15%
2018 $682,405 46%
2017 $669,456 48%
2016 $252,597 25%
2015 $391,700 25%
2014 $211,363 16%
2013 $263,850 28%
2012 $73,539 9%
2011 $202,370 14%
2010
2009 $173,500 47%
2008

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
76913 REL 16 SOW Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation 2008-603-00 EXP PAHSIMEROI RIVER HABITAT Issued $773,206 2/1/2020 - 1/31/2021
85229 SOW Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 2008-603-00 EXP PAHSIMEROI RIVER HABITAT Issued $72,993 5/1/2020 - 4/30/2021
CR-344351 SOW Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation 2008-603-00 EXP PAHSIMEROI RIVER HABITAT Pending $1 2/1/2021 - 1/31/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):23
Completed:17
On time:17
Status Reports
Completed:95
On time:43
Avg Days Late:6

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
39168 44134, 49324, 57289, 66757, 70409, 74491, 80477, 83335, 85229 2008-603-00 PAHSIMEROI RIVER HABITAT Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/2008 09/2008 Issued 49 94 6 0 30 130 76.92% 1
44180 2008-603-00 EXP PAHSIMEROI RIVER HABITAT-MOA Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 09/2009 09/2009 Closed 4 1 0 0 2 3 33.33% 0
49705 55666, 59523, 63698, 67742, 73707, 76884, 76913 REL 6, 76913 REL 16 2008-603-00 EXP PAHSIMEROI RIVER HABITAT-OSC Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation 09/2010 09/2010 Pending 40 82 10 0 15 107 85.98% 0
Project Totals 93 177 16 0 47 240 80.42% 1


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: 2008-603-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2008-603-00 - Pahsimeroi River Habitat
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2008-603-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2018. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications related to the hatchery-habitat relationship, during contracting. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Clarify the relationship of this project with the Pahsimeroi Hatchery and the ISS—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications related to the hatchery-habitat relationship, during contracting.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-603-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2008-603-00 - Pahsimeroi River Habitat
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2008-603-00
Completed Date: 9/27/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

Section 1 - We understand that a weir and RST are present at the hatchery to count fish-in and fish-out as part of an ISS project. However, the ISRP is unsure how these are currently being used for evaluating the success of the habitat improvement projects.

The answer to the ISRP was brief but does indicate that the project personnel have knowledge of the current monitoring programs. It would have been helpful to identify the entities and funding sources conducting the Before/After investigation and the aerial survey of spawning distribution.

Section 2 - What are the plans for monitoring once the ISS study is complete?

The response is adequate. The ISRP recommends continuation of the RST to measure fishin/fish-out on the system. Are there alternatives to the RST if funding is not received at the end of the project? Given the long lead times to investigate alternatives, some planning is needed now if funding is in doubt.

Section 3 - The current ISS study is now in the post-treatment years to examine what happens after ISS stocking is terminated. But the ISRP understands that a new treatment is being contemplated prior to completion of this post-treatment phase. How long will the posttreatment phase be monitored before a new treatment is applied?

See our qualification.

Section 4 - An ISEMP project takes place in a neighboring watershed; are there any plans to implement an ISEMP on this watershed as well?

The sponsors plan to wait until ISEMP is complete before changing any methods in the Pahsimeroi project. Many of the same people are involved on both projects. Rather than waiting for the end of the ISEMP, are there lessons learned from the ISEMP now that can improve the Pahsimeroi project, e.g., better tools for data management, better ways to conduct assessment?

Qualification #1 - Clarify the relationship of this project with the Pahsimeroi Hatchery and the ISS
The responses from the sponsors are generally clear, and the ISRP's qualification can be dealt with in contracting and future reviews. The qualification is that the sponsor should clarify the relationship of this project with the Pahsimeroi Hatchery and the ISS. It is not clear in the proposal or response what the new integrated program at Pahsimeroi will be, now that the ISS stocking is complete and nearly all fish from this program have returned. The response indicates than a new integrated broodstock management associated with the operation of the Pahsimeroi hatchery summer Chinook salmon mitigation program will be implemented, but provides no details on this program. For example, will hatchery-origin fish be added, or natural-origin fish removed, from the spawning grounds? The issue for the habitat restoration project is how the hatchery program's manipulation of the adult returns might influence the response to habitat restoration by naturally spawning NOR and HOR salmon. How will M&E within the Pahsimeroi River provide information on this? How will it be evaluated? How will the effect of releasing smolts from the hatchery on natural production be measured?
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

Habitat restoration has been ongoing for many years in the Pahsimeroi based on cooperative efforts with willing landowners. The site visit provided a good overview of the efforts and context for many of the decisions made.

The ISRP’s response request centers on the monitoring and evaluation of this project.

1) We understand that a weir and RST are present at the hatchery to count fish-in and fish-out as part of an ISS project. However, the ISRP is unsure how these are currently being used for evaluating the success of the habitat improvement projects?

2) What are the plans for monitoring once the ISS study is complete?

3) The current ISS study is now in the post-treatment years to examine what happens after ISS stocking is terminated. But the ISRP understands that a new treatment is being contemplated prior to completion of this post-treatment phase. How long will the post-treatment phase be monitored before a new treatment is applied?

4) An ISEMP project takes place in a neighboring watershed; are there any plans to implement an ISEMP on this watershed as well?

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

The Pahsimeroi River project is related to many of the other regional programs that have been developed, and this is clearly described in the proposal.

The ISRP found the technical background a bit too brief. The description of limiting factors and citation to the subbasin plan provides a reasonable starting place to establish a habitat restoration strategy or approach in the Pahsimeroi. The linkage to SHIPUS priority I and priority II reaches and tributaries is also a reasonable beginning point. However, the Pahsimeroi River needs a comprehensive outline for tributary reconnections, diversion screening, diversion consolidation, passage, and riparian restoration to achieve specific improvements in adult pre-spawning survival, spawning distribution, juvenile rearing distribution, juvenile abundance and juvenile condition. The premise is that fixing passage, adding water, screening diversions, and improving riparian condition will yield a net benefit to spring/summer Chinook and steelhead. The problem statement does not indicate how much improvement in fish survival and growth is needed to achieve restoration objectives or how much habitat restoration is needed to improve fish population vital statistics. It would be helpful if some measure of distance to the final goal is provided, for example is the restoration 10%, 50%, 75% complete?

The proposal lists three objectives: to increase survival and abundance of anadromous salmonids, provide improved fish passage to suitable habitat, and increase survival and abundance of resident salmonids. These are all reasonable objectives, but definitive metrics that can be used to evaluate physical habitat improvement and fish survival improvement are lacking. Without such metrics, it will be impossible for the sponsors to make conclusions about the extent of improvements derived from their efforts.

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

Accomplishments have been considerable in the 18 years of this project. Because of the volume of activities, the history/results section was limited to selected activities since 2008. Unfortunately, the brief presentation made it difficult for the ISRP to grasp the full extent of the work done. However, the site visit was most helpful in putting the work in context.

A major evaluation discussion is required on how the past actions are meeting restoration goals within the subbasin, BiOp, and Fish and Wildlife Program timelines. The RPA 35.1 objectives for the Pahsimeroi should be included and a summary of projects selected to meet the RPA targets presented. The problem statement should include enough information for the ISRP to determine what RPA 35.1 obligations have been achieved. For example is the restoration 10%, 50%, or 75% complete?

Some thought is needed on how to present this quantity of information in a succinct fashion. Maps and photos may be a better way to convey this information rather than summary tables. For example, the water delivery system in the basin is quite complex and these complexities are difficult to grasp based on the written proposal.

The adaptive management section primarily addressed individual project actions, not whether cumulative actions are achieving restoration objectives. For example, the proposal states that sprinkler irrigation is being adopted to replace flood irrigation and that this change is improving flow, water quality, or physical space in the stream. But details on actual monitoring of these outcomes are not provided.

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

There is no mention of projects collecting fish or habitat data in the Pahsimeroi River. This information should be added. Monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness also needs to be added to several sections of the proposal, even when the work is being conducted by others under a different proposal, or by a different restoration program.

Not unexpectedly, the emerging limiting factors identified for this basin are the same as in several other upper Salmon River proposals. One emerging factor not considered is the impact of any anticipated changes in land use or ownership structures.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is a long list of deliverables including passage barrier removal, fencing, and diversion improvements. Maps summarizing the location of these activities would be helpful.

Projects appear to be based on opportunistic events from landowners who have agreed to have work done. Consequently, there is little description of how priorities are established, alternatives compared, and final design and implementation executed given the need to work with willing participants. More details on how these issues are handled in project development would improve the proposal. Again, the site visit provided much needed context for the ISRP.

Information on compliance and effectiveness monitoring is needed. This monitoring may be completed by other staff and proposals, but, as stated above, the actual tasks need to be discussed somewhere in this proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The actions are all expected to improve existing habitat, make new habitat available, or improve survival. However, no monitoring protocols were identified.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 11:33:58 AM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/9/2013)

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Karma Bragg Project Lead Custer Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Daniel Bertram Administrative Contact Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation
Art Butts Interested Party Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Robert Shull Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Timothy Ludington Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration