FY 1999 proposal 9051

Additional documents

TitleType
9051 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleStabilize Blowout Creek (South Fork of Meadow Creek)
Proposal ID9051
OrganizationU.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMary Faurot
Mailing addressPayette NF, Krassel Rd., P.O. Box 1026 McCall, ID 83638
Phone / email2086340618 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionReduce 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
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

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

(working on it)

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.