FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23015
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 |
|---|---|
| 23015 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect Salmon River Breaks Wild Salmon, Steelhead, Bull Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 23015 |
| Organization | Valley Sun L.L.C. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Stew Churchwell |
| Mailing address | HC-67 Box 2096 Challis, ID 83226 |
| Phone / email | 2088382374 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Stew Churchwell |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| 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 on the Salmon River Breaks Allotment by permanently closing the allotment to livestock grazing. |
| Target species | chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.5362 | -114.8803 | Salmon River Breaks |
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
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $34,000 | $34,000 | $34,000 | $34,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: .08 | $5,000 |
| Capital | $30,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $12,000 | |
| $47,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $47,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $47,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| BLM | Monitoring | $2,000 | in-kind |
| USFS | Monitoring | $10,000 | in-kind |
| IDFG | Monitoring | $4,000 | in-kind |
| TCM | Monitoring | $8,000 | in-kind |
| IWP | Monitoring | $5,000 | in-kind |
| BLM, USFS, IDFG | Contributed time | $5,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal would permanently remove grazing in the Salmon River Breaks Grazing Allotment and this grazing removal is judged to be beneficial as it would enhance an important chinook and steelhead area. This is a well-prepared proposal with low costs that meets the Council's criteria. The information provided is consistent with that in project 23001. It is good that monitoring will be provided, but the monitoring is not described in enough detail.Comment:
Comment:
23001 - Bear Valley grazing removal and 23015 - Salmon River Breaks grazing removal. These two areas, and the Elk Creek grazing removal area that occurred last year should be paired with areas without grazing removal and used as replicates in a Tier 3 study. Although there is monitoring associated with these proposals, there are no control areas against which to judge the effects of grazing removal. Because there are a number of other potential experimental studies in this area (e.g. addressing nutrient limitation), this study will have to be designed carefully to achieve clean results.