FY 2000 proposal 20032
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect Bear Valley Wild Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout Spawning Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 20032 |
| Organization | Shoshone Bannock-Tribes and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (SBT/IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Scott Grunder |
| Mailing address | Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 3101 S. Powerline Road Nampa, ID 83686 |
| Phone / email | 2084658465 / sgrunder@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Protect critical spawning, rearing and migratory habitats for wild chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in the Elk Creek portion of the Bear Valley Basin by permanently closing the allotment to livestock grazing. |
| Target species | Wild spring/summer chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and other riparian habitat dependent 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 |
|---|
| 9405000 |
Salmon River Habitat Enhancement (SRHE) M&E |
The SRHE project will provide monitoring of the grazing allotment in conjunction with USFS personnel following permanent closure of allotment to grazing. |
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 |
|
$0 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| Capital |
Estimated value of grazing permit is $406 per cow/calf pair |
$300,000 |
| NEPA |
NEPA costs will be contributed by Forest Service |
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
Appraisal of grazing permit by BPA |
$10,000 |
| $310,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $310,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $310,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| FS |
NEPA |
$75,000 |
unknown |
| FS |
Riparian and Aquatic Habitat and Grazing Monitoring |
$40,000 |
unknown |
| IDFG |
Redd Counts & Parr Density Monitoring |
$2,000 |
unknown |
| SBT |
Parr and Habitat Monitoring and redd counts |
$3,000 |
unknown |
| SBT |
Contributed time. |
$3,000 |
unknown |
| IDFG |
Contributed time. |
$5,000 |
unknown |
| USFS |
Contributed time. |
$5,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Completion of appraisal and the schedule could be constrained if NEPA decision is appealed or litigated.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund (high priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund (high priority)
Comments:
This is an excellent proposal. It emphasizes protection and passive restoration of habitat and supports its points with data. Proposed is an unconventional approach of buying-out a USFS grazing allotment. Even though the proposal is clear and well written, no information was provided on the current status of bull trout and cutthroat trout. Good collaboration with others is evident here. Reviewers asked: Is this a precedent-setting proposal? Is it compatible with established policy?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Retire the allotment. Important production area, degraded exclusively by grazing. Covered by 1993 B.O.. USFS involved. Lost opportunity, fund it now. Fencing very expensive. Would this abrogate treaty grazing rights?
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Sections 3 and 4 are incomplete. The objectives should be quantified for time and distance of habitat/stream. Objective 2 is not valid for this project (will eliminating grazing result in 2000 adult chinook?).The grazing permit should be retired (grazing permits are privileges, not rights).
Proposal should include a monitoring plan.
Land purchase and resale of base property to the original owner is questionable (Objective 1 tasks c and g). Where does the money received from resale show up in the budget?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]