FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25092

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestoration of Healthy Watershed to Palouse River Drainage in Idaho
Proposal ID25092
OrganizationIdaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTim Cochnauer
Mailing address1540 Warner Lewiston, ID 83501
Phone / email2087995010 / tcochnau@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this projectCal Groen
Review cycleColumbia Plateau
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Palouse
Short descriptionTo restore degraded habitat and protect natural habitat in the Palouse River drainage in Idaho thereby improving water quality and quantity throughout the drainage.
Target speciesNative species in upper watershed. Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout in lower reach of watershed.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

YearAccomplishment
New project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$320,000$510,000$525,000$525,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2003FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006
$4,200,000$4,500,000$4,500,000$4,500,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 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 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Defer
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001

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.


Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Possible 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


Recommendation:
Rank C
Date:
Oct 16, 2001

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.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: