Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Reduce Sediment in Frazer Creek, Beaver Creek, Methow River |
Proposal ID | 9028 |
Organization | USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District (USFS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Frank Hanford |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 97 Winthrop, WA 98862 |
Phone / email | 5099964008 / fs@methow.com |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 1999 |
Province / Subbasin | Upper Mid-Columbia / Methow |
Short description | Build a riparian let-down fence to control livestock distrubution to reduce sediment in Frazer Creek and control livestock access to Highway 20. |
Target 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 |
|
not applicable |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
Personnel |
FS range conservationist |
$3,500 |
Supplies |
fence post, wires, staples, cattleguards, etc. |
$19,019 |
Subcontractor |
bid contract |
$15,154 |
| $37,673 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost | $37,673 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 1999 budget request | $37,673 |
FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Extremely late spring snow melt might slow start of the project. Also, extreme fire season could postpone project
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision*
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Explain if sediment has been determined to be the limiting factor, and what technique was used for this determination.Technical Issue: Clearly explain the target species (brook trout?) and measurable objectives.
Technical Issue: Need more detail on the existing resource condition and critical limiting factors, measurable objectives, strategic actions and expected results, and the monitoring methods for determining if the expected results are being achieved and the process for modifying the project based on the monitoring results.
Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.
Management Issue: Management flag - should BPA pay for personnel costs?
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The proposal does not give a relation to the Fish and Wildlife Program. It needs to provide more information on how Frazer Creek is important to the basin as a whole. The proposed project would likely be beneficial but does not give sufficient details on how it would benefit. The ISRP questioned whether BPA should be funding this.