FY 1999 proposal 9028

Additional documents

TitleType
9028 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleReduce Sediment in Frazer Creek, Beaver Creek, Methow River
Proposal ID9028
OrganizationUSDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameFrank Hanford
Mailing addressP.O. Box 97 Winthrop, WA 98862
Phone / email5099964008 / fs@methow.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Mid-Columbia / Methow
Short descriptionBuild 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
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
not applicable

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.