FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 32009
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 |
|---|---|
| 32009 Narrative | Narrative |
| 32009 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 32009 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Squaw Creek Cooperative Fisheries Restoration Project |
| Proposal ID | 32009 |
| Organization | Central Highlands Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Russel Manwaring |
| Mailing address | 1805 Hwy 16 #2 Emmett, ID 83617 |
| Phone / email | 2083654475 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Russ Manwaring |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Payette |
| Short description | Assess and ameliorate the significant factors that have resulted in a severely depressed bull trout metapopulation within the major streams of the Squaw Creek drainage. |
| Target species | Bull Trout and Redband Rainbow Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.95 | -116.37 | Confluence of Squaw Creek and Black Canyon Reservoir the project is contained within the Squaw Creek drainage |
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 |
|---|---|
| Not Applicable |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 980002 | Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment | The proposed project will provide additional data for the native salmonid assessment |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Recreate bull trout subpopulations to occupy potential early spawning and rearing habitat. | a. Inventory streams on non-federal lands in sufficient detail to determine accessibility, water temperature and physical parameters appropriate for bull trout early life history stages | 2 | $2,500 | |
| b. Integrate information collected by this project with similar information collected from USFS-managed streams and water quality information collected by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to identify habitat improvement needs. | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Particular attention will be paid to the High Valley area and Sage Hen reservoir basins because they meet the 5000 acre / 5000 foot elevation criteria mentioned by Rieman and McIntyre (1993). | 1 | $0 | ||
| d. Implement habitat improvements using contractors or volunteer organizations as appropriate. | 3 | $0 | ||
| 2. Increase survival of emigrant native fish by screening diversion. | a. Identify all irrigation diversions, determine operational regimes, diversion quantities and location in relation to main juvenile production zones. | 1 | $3,000 | |
| b. Prioritize using potential fish loss, cost feasibility and owner interest to identify products. | 1 | $2,000 | ||
| c. Use Natural Resources Conservation Service and Idaho Department of Fish & Game expertise to design screens. | 1 | $10,000 | ||
| d. Contract and construct the 10 highest priority products. | 3 | $0 | ||
| 3. Increase access to dispersal habitat for juvenile bull trout and spawning rainbow trout. (Most barriers will be culverts of which there may be over 100.) | a. Identify streams suitable for dispersal and spawning habitat and do a cursory inventory for barriers, major habitat perturbations, and habitat quantity. (Many of these will be short and unnamed first-order tributaries of main Squaw Creek). | 1 | $4,500 | |
| b. Identify potential barriers and prioritize using habitat potential, cost and availability of appropriate technology. | 1 | $2,000 | ||
| c. Contract and construct 10 highest priorities. | 3 | $0 | ||
| 4. Reestablish 5 miles of focal habitat by removing brook trout. | a. Precisely define brook trout distribution in upper main Squaw Creek (currently assumed to be above mouth of Poison Creek). | 1 | $3,000 | |
| 1 | $0 | |||
| c. Investigate feasibility of translocating downstream migrant fry from trap near mouth of Third Fork to newly available habitat upstream (five-year period). | 1 | $1,000 | ||
| d. Implementation of removal project. | 1 | $0 | ||
| 5. Increase focal habitat productivity by providing upstream movement of fluvial bull trout and redband trout at main channel irrigation diversions (5 locations). | a. Identify irrigation diversions that are barriers to fluvial bull trout and redband trout. | 1 | $1,000 | |
| b. Design passage facilities using expertise of NRCS and IDF&G. | 1 | $10,000 | ||
| c. Contract and construct structures. | 2 | $0 | ||
| 6. Increase survival of bull trout by increasing public awareness and increasing public’s ability to identify species (Schmetterling and Long, 1999). | a. Place interpretive signs at fish screen and ladder sites (10 sites). | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Place interpretive signs in campgrounds and key fishing access sites (15 sites). | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Characterize angling effect and trends by interviews and use-counts 10 days annually. | 5 | $0 | ||
| 7. Provide for the development of the fluvial / adfluvial segments of the metapopulation by reducing post-spawning mortality. | a. Characterize channel conditions during downstream migration of post-spawning adults (approximately 30 miles). | 1 | $2,500 | |
| b. Identify potential bottlenecks or sites where excess mortality might occur. | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Develop remedial actions and facilitate implementation. | 2 | $0 | ||
| 8. Improve water quality conditions by reducing fine sediment delivery to focal and nodal habitats. | a. Coordinate inventory of sources (focusing on road surface sources) with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to locate major sources. | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Work with local road managers to develop actions that minimize sediment delivery to streams. | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Design and implement demonstration projects at 5 sites. | 2 | $0 | ||
| d. Coordinate with IDEQ Watershed Assessment to identify potential sources and assist in seeking outside funding to implement their TMDL program. | 2 | $0 | ||
| 9. Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that addressed product implementation, individual fish behavior, habitat response to remedial actions and long-term population response. | a. Product implementation monitoring will entail inspection of each of the approximately 50 installations or treatments to assure completion according to design or prescription. | 3 | $0 | |
| b. Assurance of brook trout eradication will be by spot sampling 10 sites each year for the year of implementation and the next year afterward. | 2 | $0 | ||
| c. Changes in use of dispersed habitat will be by collecting pre- and post-population data from 10 treatment sites and continuing until trends are established. | 3 | $0 | ||
| d. Development rate of fluvial / adfluvial population will be documented at three indicator sites on the main channel and the lowermost fish ladder. | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Recreate bull trout subpopulations to occupy potential early spawning and rearing habitat. | 2004 | 2004 | $11,000 |
| 2. Increase survival of emigrant native fish by screening diversion. | 2004 | 2004 | $10,000 |
| 4. Reestablish 5 miles of focal habitat by removing brook trout. | 2004 | 2004 | $8,000 |
| 7. Provide for the development of the fluvial / adfluvial segments of the metapopulation by reducing post-spawning mortality. | 2004 | 2004 | $2,000 |
| 8. Improve water quality conditions by reducing fine sediment delivery to focal and nodal habitats. | 2004 | 2004 | $6,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 |
|---|
| $37,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Recreate bull trout subpopulations to occupy potential early spawning and rearing habitat. | d. Implement habitat improvements using contractors or volunteer organizations as appropriate. | 3 | $0 | |
| 2. Increase survival of emigrant native fish by screening diversion. | d. Contract and construct the 10 highest priority products. | 3 | $0 | |
| 3. Increase access to dispersal habitat for juvenile bull trout and spawning rainbow trout. (Most barriers will be culverts of which there may be over 100.) | c. Contract and construct 10 highest priorities. | 3 | $0 | |
| 4. Reestablish 5 miles of focal habitat by removing brook trout. | d. Implementation of removal project. | 1 | $0 | |
| 5. Increase focal habitat productivity by providing upstream movement of fluvial bull trout and redband trout at main channel irrigation diversions (5 locations). | c. Contract and construct structures. | 3 | $0 | |
| 6. Increase survival of bull trout by increasing public awareness and increasing public’s ability to identify species (Schmetterling and Long, 1999). | a. Place interpretive signs at fish screen and ladder sites (10 sites). | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Place interpretive signs in campgrounds and key fishing access sites (15 sites). | 1 | $0 | ||
| 7. Provide for the development of the fluvial / adfluvial segments of the metapopulation by reducing post-spawning mortality. | c. Develop remedial actions and facilitate implementation. | 1 | $0 | |
| 8. Improve water quality conditions by reducing fine sediment delivery to focal and nodal habitats. | c. Design and implement demonstration projects at 5 sites. | 2 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Recreate bull trout subpopulations to occupy potential early spawning and rearing habitat. | 2004 | 2006 | $75,000 |
| 2. Increase survival of emigrant native fish by screening diversion. | 2004 | 2006 | $100,000 |
| 3. Increase access to dispersal habitat for juvenile bull trout and spawning rainbow trout. (Most barriers will be culverts of which there may be over 30.) | 2004 | 2006 | $100,000 |
| 4. Reestablish 5 miles of focal habitat by removing brook trout. | 2005 | 2005 | $50,000 |
| 5. Increase focal habitat productivity by providing upstream movement of fluvial bull trout and redband trout at main channel irrigation diversions (5 locations). | 2004 | 2006 | $150,000 |
| 6. Increase survival of bull trout by increasing public awareness and increasing public’s ability to identify species (Schmetterling and Long, 1999). | 2004 | 2004 | $12,500 |
| 7. Provide for the development of the fluvial / adfluvial segments of the metapopulation by reducing post-spawning mortality (Costs for both tasks). | 2005 | 2005 | $25,000 |
| 8. Improve water quality conditions by reducing fine sediment delivery to focal and nodal habitats. | 2005 | 2005 | $50,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $153,500 | $241,000 | $168,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Recreate bull trout subpopulations to occupy potential early spawning and rearing habitat. | d. Implement habitat improvements using contractors or volunteer organizations as appropriate. | 3 | $0 | |
| 2. Increase survival of emigrant native fish by screening diversion. | d. Contract and construct the 10 highest priority products. | 3 | $0 | |
| 5. Increase focal habitat productivity by providing upstream movement of fluvial bull trout and redband trout at main channel irrigation diversions (5 locations). | c. Contract and construct structures. | 3 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Recreate bull trout subpopulations to occupy potential early spawning and rearing habitat. | 2005 | 2007 | $22,500 |
| 2. Increase survival of emigrant native fish by screening diversion. | 2005 | 2007 | $30,000 |
| 5. Increase focal habitat productivity by providing upstream movement of fluvial bull trout and redband trout at main channel irrigation diversions (5 locations). | 2005 | 2007 | $45,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|
| $32,500 | $32,500 | $32,500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6. Increase survival of bull trout by increasing public awareness and increasing public’s ability to identify species (Schmetterling and Long, 1999). | c. Characterize angling effect and trends by interviews and use-counts 10 days annually. | 5 | $2,250 | |
| 9. Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that addressed product implementation, individual fish behavior, habitat response to remedial actions and long-term population response. | a. Product implementation monitoring will entail inspection of each of the approximately 50 installations or treatments to assure completion according to design or prescription. | 3 | $0 | |
| b. Assurance of brook trout eradication will be by spot sampling 10 sites each year for the year of implementation and the next year afterward. | 2 | $0 | ||
| c. Changes in use of dispersed habitat will be by collecting pre- and post-population data from 10 treatment sites and continuing until trends are established. | 3 | $0 | ||
| d. Development rate of fluvial / adfluvial population will be documented at three indicator sites on the main channel and the lowermost fish ladder. | 4 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6. Increase survival of bull trout by increasing public awareness and increasing public’s ability to identify species (Schmetterling and Long, 1999). | 2004 | 2007 | $9,000 |
| 9. Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan that addresses product implementation, individual fish behavior, habitat response to remedial actions and long-term population response. | 2004 | 2007 | $49,500 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,250 | $24,750 | $9,750 | $9,750 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.8 | $33,850 |
| Fringe | $3,700 | |
| Supplies | $500 | |
| Travel | $2,125 | |
| Indirect | $2,075 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $1,500 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $43,750 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $43,750 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $43,750 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| ID Fish and Game | Consultation and collectors permits | $1,000 | in-kind |
| Del Skesick | Professional Services | $1,000 | in-kind |
| Trout Unlimited - Ted Trueblood Chapter | Fees for education materials | $500 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Response needed. The proposal would work to bolster bull trout in one of the five key watersheds in the Payette drainage as identified in the Idaho Governor's bull trout recovery. Basic building blocks appear to be in place for a watershed level program, but it seems to be in the initial planning stage.Please clarify the level of support from the Idaho Department of Fish & Game for the project. From the proposal, there is uncertainty regarding whether there would be adequate participation of qualified fish biologist personnel. Please provide additional information. Also, the M&E for habitat response and long-term population response needs to be more thoroughly described in the response and made consistent with IDFG methods and projects. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, and the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation.
Comment:
Due to the weakness of the proposed methods and the apparent lack of coordination with IDFG, CBFWA suggests that this project should be reclassified as a "Recommended Action" until the following comments are answered in a satisfactory manner. Are all culvert replacement activities occurring on private lands? Are bull trout present in Squaw Creek above the mouth of Poison Creek? What is the current population status of the Squaw Creek bull trout population compared to other populations within the Subbasin? How will the sponsor "characterize channel condition" during downstream migration of post-spawning adults? In addition, CBFWA expressed concern relative to the lack of information pertaining to the type of poison that would be used by the sponsors. CBFWA suggests that until the status of the bull trout population is identified, poisoning activities should not be implemented.Comment:
Fundable in part to support stream inventory and to improve planning and coordination efforts with IDFG and other parties. This is a program that involves a lot of groups and interests in the community, but needs further collaboration with state and federal land managers. The proposal would work to bolster bull trout in one of the five key watersheds in the Payette drainage as identified in the Idaho Governor's bull trout recovery plan. Basic building blocks appear to be in place for a watershed level program, but it seems to be in the initial planning stage. The ISRP supports funding objective 1, tasks a and b, for stream inventory and data integration and objective 3, tasks a and b, for streams surveys to identify fish passage barriers. Reviewers suggest holding off on supporting all or part of the diversion screening and fish passage improvements at this time.Comment: