FY07-09 proposal 200736300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | IDL Pend Oreille Area Fish Passage |
Proposal ID | 200736300 |
Organization | Idaho Department of Lands |
Short description | This project involves the replacement of fish barrier culverts with fish passable crossing structures. This will make available existing fish habitat. |
Information transfer | Information transfer will include offering project data on-line. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Pete Van Sickle | Idaho Department of Lands | pvansickle@idl.state.id.us |
All assigned contacts |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Pend Oreille
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
48.204365 | -116.843677 | Alder Creek | |
48.322338 | -116.585522 | Careywood Creek | |
48.303490 | -116.729419 | Koch Creek | |
48.336788 | -116.845294 | Fox Creek |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Bull Troutsecondary: Cutthroat Trout
secondary: Brook Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Sub-basin Objective 1B1 | Protect and restore instream and riparian habitat to maintain functional ecosystems for resident fish | Intermountain | Strategy a: Develop criteria for prioritizing streams and/or stream reaches for native resident and desirable nonnative fishes Strategy c: Develop and prioritize subbasin-wide habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement measures for native residen |
Sub-basin Objective 1B4 | : Develop, prioritize, and implement projects to remove or reduce sediment sources negatively influencing fish habitat | Intermountain | Strategy a: Develop criteria for prioritizing streams and/or stream reaches for sediment reduction improvements |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Install Fish Passage Structure | Increase Available habitat | Remove four fish passage blocking culverts with fish passable structures | 7/1/2007 | 10/31/2009 | $165,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 7 miles * Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes * Was barrier Full or Partial?: Full |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Supplies | Contract costs including all materials | $75,000 | $90,000 | $0 |
Totals | $75,000 | $90,000 | $0 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $165,000 |
Total work element budget: | $165,000 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IDL | Planning, design and administration | $12,800 | $12,800 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
Totals | $12,800 | $12,800 | $0 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $1,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,000 |
Comments: On-going operational and periodic maintenance of roads and bridges. |
Future O&M costs: These costs are annual inspection of structures and periodic maintenance of structures and approach roads.
Termination date: 12/31/2009
Comments: Termination of project occurs when stream crossing structures are installed to project specifications and all payments are completed.
Final deliverables: Final deliverables include culverts removed and disposed and replacement bridges installed and site prepared to specifications.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This project is likely to have major benefit (fish were present, but no numbers provided below the barrier culverts) despite shortcuts taken in proposal writing. Note that throughout the proposal, the wording is mostly (or entirely) similar to that of Proposals 200705600 and 200737300, even in that access to 7 miles of stream will be enabled. Does the latter mean that each of the projects will provide that much access or that the three projects will in total? More specific information is needed in the response about the amount of habitat above the present barrier. Also, a measure of project success should be made after the barrier was eliminated (no M&E is included). A response is needed on monitoring and assessment of the project (e.g., evaluation of whether fish successfully pass or how many fish pass, and how much habitat is upstream waiting to be utilized).
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: This project is likely to have major benefit (fish were present, but no numbers provided below the barrier culverts) despite shortcuts taken in proposal writing. Note that throughout the proposal, the wording is mostly (or entirely) similar to that of Proposals 200705600 and 200737300, even in that access to 7 miles of stream will be enabled. Does the latter mean that each of the projects will provide that much access or that the three projects will in total? More specific information is needed in the response about the amount of habitat above the present barrier. Also, a measure of project success should be made after the barrier was eliminated (no M&E is included). A response is needed on monitoring and assessment of the project (e.g., evaluation of whether fish successfully pass or how many fish pass, and how much habitat is upstream waiting to be utilized).