Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Stabilize Blowout Creek (South Fork of Meadow Creek) |
| Proposal ID | 9051 |
| Organization | U.S. Forest Service (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Mary Faurot |
| Mailing address | Payette NF, Krassel Rd., P.O. Box 1026 McCall, ID 83638 |
| Phone / email | 2086340618 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Reduce sediment delivery from an unstable tributary (Blowout Creek) to anadromous fish habitat in the East Fork South Fork Salmon River. Instability was caused by historic failure of a hydroelectric dam, and would be rectified by converting the channels |
| 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 |
|---|
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 |
|
$45,336 |
| Supplies |
|
$2,600 |
| Operating |
|
$3,381 |
| Travel |
|
$2,500 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$251,300 |
| Other |
|
$30,000 |
| $335,117 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $335,117 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $335,117 |
| 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: NEPA, contract preparation, and awarding process by the USFS.
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: List the specific wetland restoration techniques.Management Issue: Explain the cost-sharing.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.Did not respond adequately to technical criteria. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether technical criteria were met, or was complete but did not meet technical criteria.
Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.
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 after Revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is for a complicated stream and riparian habitat restoration project. Reviewers had many questions about the methods to be used. The proposal does not explain the methods to be used. In particular, the ISRP asks what methods will be used to save the species in the current channel during restoration. Citing the Rosgen method without adequate description of specific methods is not adequate. Geomorphological expertise should be included. Monitoring also is not well described. Use of prescriptions from a watershed analysis is a positive aspect.