FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200105100
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Reconnect Little Morgan Creek to the Mainstem Pahsimeroi River |
| Proposal ID | 200105100 |
| Organization | State of Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mike Larkin |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1336. 1215 Hwy 93 N Salmon, Idaho 83467 |
| Phone / email | 2087562271 / mlarkin@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Virgil Moore |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Reestablish 14.3 miles of historical anadromous habitat and provide an isolated bull trout population access to the mainstem river. |
| Target species | Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.62 | -113.96 | Little Morgan Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Fish/Riparian monitoring | $3,500 |
| Supplies | Monitoring equipment | $1,000 |
| Travel | Vehicle- gas | $500 |
| Subcontractor | Engineering/Design/Easements | $140,000 |
| Other | Construction phase | $955,000 |
| $1,100,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $1,100,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $1,100,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Fish and Game | M&E - Surveys/Planning | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Model Watershed Project | Planning Coordination | $10,000 | in-kind |
| IDWR | Planning Coordination | $10,000 | in-kind |
| DEQ | Planning Coordination | $10,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
The largest portion of the budget is for planning and design. It is not clear whether construction is included in this proposal or whether it involves planning and design only. If so, there is no on-the-ground element. It appears that this project could have long term benefits for fish. The proposal could be expanded and reconsidered as part of the Province Review.Comment:
This project should be reviewed under the provincial review. Intends to reconnect habitat by providing additional streamflow, but the "saved" water comes with no guarantee that it will remain in the stream.Comment:
Comment:
The proposal appeared likely to provide benefit to ESA-listed fish species in the Salmon River basin by reconnecting a lower tributary to the Pahsimeroi River. Projects like this are expected to contribute to recovery efforts identified in the FCRPS Biological Opinion and the Basinwide Recovery Strategy. NMFS reviewers concluded that this project fell short of highest priority status for 2001 because project planning design and description are not yet complete. Reviewers were unable to analyze what work will actually occur on the ground and whether gains from that work will adequately and consistently provide connectivity. Moreover, reviewers have not found assurances that water savings will be permanently protected instream. The proposal would deserve higher priority if it were part of a scientifically-based, watershed-level assessment. It should be reconsidered in the context of the Mountain Snake provincial review.Comment: