FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23009
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 23009 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Reconnect Falls Creek to the Mainstem Pahsimeroi River |
| Proposal ID | 23009 |
| Organization | State of Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mike Larkin |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1336. 1215 Hwy 93 N Salmon, Idaho 83467 |
| Phone / email | 2087562271 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Virgil Moore |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Reestablish 14.0 miles of historical anadromous habitat, save 1-3 cfs during summer months and provide an isolated bull trout population access to the mainstem river. |
| Target species | Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.5655 | -113.8782 | Falls Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Construction Super., Fish Riparian monitor | $53,500 |
| Supplies | Monitoring equipment | $1,000 |
| Travel | Vehicle- gas | $500 |
| Subcontractor | Construction - Supplies | $700,000 |
| Other | Monitoring/Realignment of channel | $75,000 |
| $830,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $830,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $830,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Fish and Game | M&E - Surveys/Planning/monitoring | $32,000 | in-kind |
| Model Watershed Project | Planning Coordination | $15,000 | in-kind |
| BLM | Planning Coordination | $20,000 | in-kind |
| IDWR | incorporate into Water Basin Plan | $5,000 | in-kind |
| USBR | biological/design assistance | $8,000 | in-kind |
| NRCS | Final Engineering Designs/Planning | $20,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This is likely a worthwhile project but it is not ready for one time on the ground funding. It is still in its planning phase. The tasks list focuses on design and not installation or construction. Furthermore, the effectiveness should be justified given the small amount of water involved and the failure to specify how return as "fish flows" would be enforced. This proposal could be expanded and reconsidered as part of the Province Review.Comment:
Currently 8 diversions on Big Springs Creek with partial migration. 2-3 years for completion of Big Springs Creek passage problems. 2 years to complete Falls Creek. Permits have not been completed. Province review will determine priority of this project in this basin. Intends to reconnect habitat by providing additional streamflow, but the "saved" water comes with no guarantee that it will remain in the stream.