FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23015

Additional documents

TitleType
23015 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleProtect Salmon River Breaks Wild Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat
Proposal ID23015
OrganizationValley Sun L.L.C.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameStew Churchwell
Mailing addressHC-67 Box 2096 Challis, ID 83226
Phone / email2088382374 / schurch@custertel.net
Manager authorizing this projectStew Churchwell
Review cycleFY 2001 High Priority
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionProtect critical spawning, rearing and migratory habitats for wild chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout on the Salmon River Breaks Allotment by permanently closing the allotment to livestock grazing.
Target specieschinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.5362 -114.8803 Salmon River Breaks
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$34,000$34,000$34,000$34,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel FTE: .08 $5,000
Capital $30,000
Subcontractor $12,000
$47,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$47,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$47,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
BLM Monitoring $2,000 in-kind
USFS Monitoring $10,000 in-kind
IDFG Monitoring $4,000 in-kind
TCM Monitoring $8,000 in-kind
IWP Monitoring $5,000 in-kind
BLM, USFS, IDFG Contributed time $5,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
A
Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This proposal would permanently remove grazing in the Salmon River Breaks Grazing Allotment and this grazing removal is judged to be beneficial as it would enhance an important chinook and steelhead area. This is a well-prepared proposal with low costs that meets the Council's criteria. The information provided is consistent with that in project 23001. It is good that monitoring will be provided, but the monitoring is not described in enough detail.
Recommendation:
HP "A" -BiOp
Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Rank 2
Date:
Feb 26, 2001

Comment:

23001 - Bear Valley grazing removal and 23015 - Salmon River Breaks grazing removal. These two areas, and the Elk Creek grazing removal area that occurred last year should be paired with areas without grazing removal and used as replicates in a Tier 3 study. Although there is monitoring associated with these proposals, there are no control areas against which to judge the effects of grazing removal. Because there are a number of other potential experimental studies in this area (e.g. addressing nutrient limitation), this study will have to be designed carefully to achieve clean results.