FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25092
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 25092 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25092 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25092 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Palouse Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Palouse Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restoration of Healthy Watershed to Palouse River Drainage in Idaho |
| Proposal ID | 25092 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Cochnauer |
| Mailing address | 1540 Warner Lewiston, ID 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087995010 / tcochnau@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Cal Groen |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Palouse |
| Short description | To restore degraded habitat and protect natural habitat in the Palouse River drainage in Idaho thereby improving water quality and quantity throughout the drainage. |
| Target species | Native species in upper watershed. Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout in lower reach of watershed. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Deep Creek/Palouse River Drainage in Idaho | ||
| 46.99 | -116.92 | Deep Creek |
| 46.5889 | -118.2144 | Palouse River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| New project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Establish position to coordinate restoration activities of all participating entities, identified needed projects and implement BPA sponsored programs | Task 1. Biologist coordinator, in cooperation with state and federal agencies and private land owners, will develop cooperative program to meet water quality and quantity goals for the Palouse River and its tributaries in Idaho | 5 | $30,000 | |
| Task 2. Identify and record using GIS site specific habitat protection and restoration needs to address water quality and quantity issues in the drainage | 2 | $32,000 | ||
| Task 3. Develop long range comprehensive plans to prioritize identified projects to meets stated goals for water quality and quantity | 2 | $30,000 | ||
| Task 4. Identify, seek and coordinate funding sources for implementation of identified projects | 5 | $8,200 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1.Establish position to coordinate restoration activities of all participating entities, identified needed projects and implement BPA sponsored programs | 2003 | 2006 | $1,880,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $320,000 | $510,000 | $525,000 | $525,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2. Initiate habitat improvement activities. | Task 1. Acquire conservation easement on 2 miles of Deep Creek | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
| Task 2. Construction riparian exclosure fencing on 10 miles of Deep Creek | 1 | $50,000 | Yes | |
| Task 3. Re-vegetate 10 miles of riparian of Deep Creek | 1 | $8,000 | Yes | |
| Task 4. Restore one mile of degraded channel on Deep Creek. | 1 | $32,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2. Inititate habitat improvement activities for priority projects. | 2003 | 2006 | $1,400,000 |
| Objective 3. Protect and Enhance riparian and wetland areas | 2003 | 2006 | $1,400,000 |
| Objective 4. Protect native prairie and woodland areas | 2003 | 2006 | $1,400,000 |
| Objective 5. Identify and develop BMP's for high nutrient sources | 2004 | 2006 | $300,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $4,200,000 | $4,500,000 | $4,500,000 | $4,500,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Monitoring water quality and quantity at index sites as related to restoration and protection activites | 2005 | 2006 | $100,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2006 |
|---|
| $100,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Fishery/wildlife biologist | $35,000 |
| Fringe | $14,000 | |
| Supplies | $27,200 | |
| Travel | $7,000 | |
| Indirect | $17,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $100,000 | |
| $200,200 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $200,200 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $200,200 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Department of Fish and Game | Supervision, office space, planning | $25,000 | in-kind |
| Natural Resource Conservation Service | Planning | $10,000 | in-kind |
| US Forest Service | Planning | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Idaho Department of Environmental Quality | Planning | $10,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. Do not fund in entirety; fund the planning efforts only. However, a response is also required on the initial planning effort, which requires more detail and standardized approach. Do not fund restoration activities until a plan is in place that includes a statement of expected benefits in terms of native fish or mitigation.
The PI proposes to hire a person to initiate planning, identify problems, locate potential project sites, and potential cooperators. They also propose to begin habitat improvement activities in Deep Creek. The PI is qualified to address the objectives. Objectives for the first year are relatively clear, but objectives in subsequent years are very general - specificity is to be defined during the first year. The budget request is large, so it seems prudent to ask for a detailed proposal at the end of the first year to describe known needs and projected benefits from the investment. The standard approach to watershed assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, monitoring and evaluation is required, based on established templates as done for the Hood River and elsewhere, and in relation to overall restoration priorities in the province.
Comment:
The outyear budgets are excessive. Implementation plan needs to be developed prior to funding implementation activities. Fund Objective 1 ($100,200). Implementation funding should be sought once the implementation plan has been developed.* Identified by the CBFWA as a proposal that could potentially be implemented as High Priority projects pending crediting resolution with BPA and NWPPC. The CBFWA will formally request a policy level meeting to resolve this issue.
Comment:
* Identified by the CBFWA as a proposal that could potentially be implemented as High Priority projects pending crediting resolution with BPA and NWPPC. The CBFWA will formally request a policy level meeting to resolve this issue.Comment:
Fund in part; fund the instream assessment and planning efforts only. Do not fund restoration activities until a plan is in place that includes a statement of expected benefits in terms of native fish or mitigation. A response was provided that was in agreement with this recommendation.The PI proposes to hire a person to initiate planning, identify problems, locate potential project sites, and potential cooperators. They also propose to begin habitat improvement activities in Deep Creek. The PI is qualified to address the objectives. Objectives for the first year are relatively clear, but objectives in subsequent years are very general - specificity is to be defined during the first year. The standard approach to watershed assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, monitoring and evaluation is required, based on established templates as done for the Hood River and elsewhere, and in relation to overall restoration priorities in the province.
The budget request is large, so it seems prudent to ask for a detailed proposal at the end of the first year to describe known needs and projected benefits from the investment.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPossible indirect benefits -- planning & coordination project and instream assessment
Comments
Proposal is to hire a person to initiate planning, identify problems, locate potential project sites, & potential cooperators. Project also proposes to begin habitat improvement activities in Deep Creek. Fund instream assessment & planning efforts only, and not fund restoration activities until a plan is in place that includes a statement of expected benefits in terms of fish or mitigation.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
This proposal calls for a substantial commitment of funds at too early a stage. BPA recommends awaiting development of a sub-basin plan for the Palouse. Any proposal for the Idaho portion of the sub-basin should be integrated with a Washington proposal as the major portion of the sub-basin is in Washington. This project proposes to enhance habitat that appears to be low priority relative to the NMFS’ Biological Opinion and F&W Program strategies of addressing the best habitat first. Also, the USFS and NRCS appear to be operating in the sub-basin to enhance habitat. BPA should consider a strategy to allow these agencies and their funds to take the lead role in stream and riparian rehabilitation. BPA should avoid using its funds in the Palouse to create a complex and expensive array of entities all focused on the same objectives.Comment:
Comment:
Comment: