FY07-09 proposal 200737300

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleIDL Priest Lake Fish Passage
Proposal ID200737300
OrganizationIdaho Department of Lands
Short descriptionThis project involves the replacement of fish barrier culverts with fish passable structures. This will make available existing fish habitat.
Information transferInformation transfer will include offering project data on-line.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Contacts
ContactOrganizationEmail
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

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription
48.27.5 -116.42.40 Race Creek T59N, R3W, Sec. 22
48.27.21 -116.42.60 North Fork of East River T59N, R3W, Sec. 22

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Bull Trout
secondary: Resident Fish

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Sub-basin Objective 1B1 Protect and restore instream and riparian habitat tto 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: Develp and prioritize subsasin-wide havitat 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 nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Install Fish Passage Structure Increase available havitat Remove two fish passage blocking culvers and replace with fish passable structures 7/1/2007 10/31/2009 $108,420
Biological objectives
Metrics
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 1.5 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
* Was barrier Full or Partial?: Partial

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Supplies Contract costs including all materials $55,100 $53,320 $0
Totals $55,100 $53,320 $0
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $108,420
Total work element budget: $108,420
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
IDL Planning, Design, Administration $7,300 $7,300 $0 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $7,300 $7,300 $0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $1,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,000
Comments: On-going operatinal 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.