FY 2000 proposal 20017
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Habitat Within Dredge Tailings on the Yankee Fork Salmon River |
| Proposal ID | 20017 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service (SBT/IDFG/USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jeffry L. Anderson |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 83203 |
| Phone / email | 2082383743 / salmon1@cyberhighway.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Restore natural hydraulic and sediment regimes, restore floodplain and riparian function, expand available chinook salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, connect the West Fork Yankee Fork and Yankee Fork Salmon River priority critical reaches |
| Target species | Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon, Snake River summer steelhead, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Salary for Project Manager (1 FTE) |
$50,000 |
| Fringe |
34% of Salary |
$17,000 |
| Supplies |
Aerial videography, thematic mapper imagery |
$4,500 |
| Operating |
Pilot restoration |
$50,000 |
| Travel |
|
$4,000 |
| Indirect |
28% of salary and fringe |
$18,760 |
| Other |
Vehicle lease |
$4,000 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$59,000 |
| $207,260 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $207,260 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $207,260 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $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 FY00 is to complete the Watershed Assessment, remote sensing analysis, road and archaeological surveys, and a pilot study. Limitations could include NEPA and ESA compliance, permitting, easements, and available work window.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund, technically inadequate
Comments:
The proposal intends to develop a channel restoration design for a portion of the Yankee Fork and to conduct a small pilot project. The proposal cites a six-mile stream segment on private land as the intended target area, but that is not entirely clear. The authors do not establish that this area is a critical bottleneck limiting production and therefore, that it deserves priority consideration. A project manager would be hired at a $50K salary. An easement or land exchange with private landowners would be necessary but there is no further mention of interaction with the company. No cost sharing is shown although they list collaborators. This appears to be a poorly conceived project with little chance of success. Alternative approaches and unwanted side-effects are not discussed and a monitoring and evaluation plan is not described. The CBFWA evaluation notes that planning is not completed and the proposal "…does not describe biological objectives or milestones. Monitoring plan is inadequate." Reviewers consider the proposal deficient in sound scientific principle and lacking in clearly defined objectives, particularly in advancing provisions for monitoring and evaluation.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Planning not completed but no O&M expected.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Section 3 is incomplete and Section 4 does not describe biological objectives or milestones. Are there any cost-share partners? Monitoring plan is inadequate.
The Forest Service should contribute personnel and operation costs.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting];