Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Habitat within Dredge Tailings on the Yankee Fork Salmon River |
| Proposal ID | 9014 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service (SBT, IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jeffry L. Anderson |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 83203 |
| Phone / email | 2082383757 / salmon@nicoh.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Restore hydraulic & sediment regimes, restore floodplain & riparian function, expand available chinook & steelhead spawning/rearing habitat, connect W.Fork Yankee Fork & Yankee Fork Salmon River, provide upslope stability. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$50,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$17,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$4,000 |
| Operating |
|
$50,000 |
| Capital |
|
$15,000 |
| Travel |
|
$4,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$18,760 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$43,500 |
| $202,260 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $202,260 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $202,260 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: The goal for FY99 is to complete the Watershed Assessment, complete remote sensing analysis, complete a road survey and archaeological survey, and complete a pilot study. Construction phase and projected outyear costs are contingent on completion of remote sensing analysis, and may be subject to substantial change dependent on the results of these analyses. The project could also be limited by NEPA compliance, ESA compliance and constraints, permitting (state and federal), easements with private landowners, and available work window. According to recent redd surveys, it is unlikely any fish will return to spawn in 1999-2001, affording an opportune time to initiate and attempt to complete construction with minimal impacts on listed species. There are currently federal highway funds available that need to be obligated by the year 1999. If these funds are used within our proposed construction dates, they could help alleviate costs associated with moving the road from the middle of the floodplain.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Pass (Fundable)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Defer pending availability of funds
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is a worthwhile, reasonable proposal. The incorporation of expertise in geomorphology is a strength. The methods should be more thoroughly described.