FY07-09 proposal 200729600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Snake / Clearwater

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: These costs annual inspection of structures and periodic maintenance of structures and approach roads

Termination date: 12/31/2009
Comments: Termination of project occurs when bridges are installed to project specifications and all payments are completed.

Final deliverables: final deliverables include culverts removed and disposed and replacement bridges installed and site prepared to specifications.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is one of three Idaho Department of Lands projects (projects 200729600, 200734200, and 200736100) to remove culverts perceived to be blocking access for migratory fish to productive habitat in the Clearwater Basin. In this proposal, three culverts will be removed opening 16 miles of stream now considered inaccessible. In response, a detailed justification for the proposed projects including the basis for the sites selected is needed. Sponsors need to outline how these sites were assigned the highest priority (watershed and impact area)? Sponsors need to consider how these three proposals could be considered together for priority setting and compile a joint response for all three proposals. The sponsors need to provide convincing evidence that reaches upstream from the proposed improvements will in fact provide significant amounts of productive fish habitat. The proposal should describe fish species composition, fish distribution and abundance, channel gradient, and substrate composition. It should include evidence that other potential barriers do not impact project sites in each system. If a perceived barrier has been in place for many years, what will prevent access to exotic species such as brook trout causing potentially harmful genetic or competitive effects? Please provide the basis for your conclusions in the response. Deliverables (as described) have nothing to do with fish and wildlife (or aquatic habitats). In response, please clarify roles of Idaho Department of Lands with role that IDF&G might have in M&E (not provided for). If not IDFG, who will do M&E (biological response, as well as implementation)? The sponsors do not describe relationships to other projects or collaborative efforts. If these projects provide access to productive habitat that is not presently being used by endemic species that can be harmed by entry of local exotics, it has potential for producing long-term benefits. However, in the response, IDL needs to provide a more convincing case that limited resource dollars should be expended at these sites as opposed to other potential problem sites. The ISRP would like responses to the following items in a joint response for projects 200729600, 200734200, and 200736100. 1. Is there a logical basis for separating these three projects or can they be included in a single proposal? 2. These three proposals, whether singly or in concert, need to include analyses showing that the sites selected are associated with the greatest problems in the subbasin for migrating fish. 3. The proposal(s) needs to show that these sites are consistent with the priority needs identified in the subbasin plan. 4. Stating that a project will open miles of stream to migrating fish needs to be supported with evidence that significant productivity for desirable species exists in the opened area. Convincing details should be provided to show, for example, that gradient is not excessive, that complex substrate exists, and that other barriers upstream from the site do not exist. 5. What evidence can be provided to show that no isolated populations of endemic species exist upstream from these barriers? 6. Deliverables need to be described in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is one of three Idaho Department of Lands projects (projects 200729600, 200734200, and 200736100) to remove culverts perceived to be blocking access for migratory fish to productive habitat in the Clearwater Basin. In this proposal, three culverts will be removed opening 16 miles of stream now considered inaccessible. In response, a detailed justification for the proposed projects including the basis for the sites selected is needed. Sponsors need to outline how these sites were assigned the highest priority (watershed and impact area)? Sponsors need to consider how these three proposals could be considered together for priority setting and compile a joint response for all three proposals. The sponsors need to provide convincing evidence that reaches upstream from the proposed improvements will in fact provide significant amounts of productive fish habitat. The proposal should describe fish species composition, fish distribution and abundance, channel gradient, and substrate composition. It should include evidence that other potential barriers do not impact project sites in each system. If a perceived barrier has been in place for many years, what will prevent access to exotic species such as brook trout causing potentially harmful genetic or competitive effects? Please provide the basis for your conclusions in the response. Deliverables (as described) have nothing to do with fish and wildlife (or aquatic habitats). In response, please clarify roles of Idaho Department of Lands with role that IDF&G might have in M&E (not provided for). If not IDFG, who will do M&E (biological response, as well as implementation)? The sponsors do not describe relationships to other projects or collaborative efforts. If these projects provide access to productive habitat that is not presently being used by endemic species that can be harmed by entry of local exotics, it has potential for producing long-term benefits. However, in the response, IDL needs to provide a more convincing case that limited resource dollars should be expended at these sites as opposed to other potential problem sites. The ISRP would like responses to the following items in a joint response for projects 200729600, 200734200, and 200736100. 1. Is there a logical basis for separating these three projects or can they be included in a single proposal? 2. These three proposals, whether singly or in concert, need to include analyses showing that the sites selected are associated with the greatest problems in the subbasin for migrating fish. 3. The proposal(s) needs to show that these sites are consistent with the priority needs identified in the subbasin plan. 4. Stating that a project will open miles of stream to migrating fish needs to be supported with evidence that significant productivity for desirable species exists in the opened area. Convincing details should be provided to show, for example, that gradient is not excessive, that complex substrate exists, and that other barriers upstream from the site do not exist. 5. What evidence can be provided to show that no isolated populations of endemic species exist upstream from these barriers? 6. Deliverables need to be described in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife.