Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | New Life for dead stream |
| Proposal ID | 34007 |
| Organization | Baker Valley Irrigation District (BVID) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jim Colton |
| Mailing address | 3859 10th Street Baker City, Oregon 97814 |
| Phone / email | 5415235451 / conniec@eoni.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jim Colton |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Powder |
| Short description | Restoring an old stream to reclaim a fishery, wildlife habitat for all aquatic species |
| Target species | Trout, uppland game, nongame birds and animals and other aquatic species |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
|
|
HU 17050203 T8S, R39EWM, Section 1 End of Project |
|
|
HU 17050203 T8S, R40EWM, Section 6 Beginning of project |
| 44.89 |
-117.87 |
Powder River |
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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Excavating |
recreating a fishery |
2 |
$12,870 |
|
| Smoothing spoils |
Preparing land for Seeding |
1 |
$4,095 |
|
| Fencing |
Protecting area from livestock |
3 |
$13,200 |
|
| Vegetation |
Seed, Plant and Propagate |
5 |
$5,400 |
|
| Fish weirs |
Provide ripples for fish habitat |
4 |
$6,000 |
|
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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: Three employees |
$9,600 |
| Fringe |
Insurance |
$2,400 |
| Supplies |
Fuel, oil |
$2,900 |
| Travel |
500 miles @ $0.35 |
$175 |
| Indirect |
Permits |
$250 |
| Capital |
None |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: Provided |
$0 |
| NEPA |
2 weeks |
$500 |
| Subcontractor |
none |
$0 |
| $15,825 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $15,825 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $15,825 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Baker Valley SWCD |
Technical Assistance |
$3,200 |
in-kind |
| Ducks Unlimited |
Supplies, Tags and Technical Assistance |
$2,300 |
in-kind |
| Heritage Ranch |
Access, Labor, Equipment, Seeding |
$4,300 |
in-kind |
| NRCS |
Technical assistance |
$2,700 |
in-kind |
| ODFW |
Technical assistance |
$2,800 |
in-kind |
| Baker Valley Irrigation District |
Labor, Equipment and vegetation placement |
$8,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 24, 2002
Comment:
Not innovative. This project does not meet the innovative criteria and would have been more appropriately submitted for the Middle Snake Provincial Review (now nearing completion). The techniques proposed for stream restoration are not innovative in the Columbia River Basin, and no attempt was made to show how the proposed project met the innovative criteria.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 28, 2002
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Water quality-Potential increase in survival if sediment is reduced and stream temperatures are reduced by restoration.
Comments
No attempt to show how the project meets the "innovative" criteria. This appears to be a basic restoration project.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Water quality- Potential increase in survival if sediment is reduced and stream temperatures are reduced by restoration.Comments
No attempt to show how the project meets the “innovative” criteria. This appears to be a basic restoration project.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No