FY 1999 proposal 9114

Additional documents

TitleType
9114 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleStabilizing Stream Channels in the Cabin Creek Watershed
Proposal ID9114
OrganizationU.S. Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Cle Elum Ranger District (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBill Ehinger
Mailing address803 W 2nd Cle Elum WA 98922
Phone / email5096744411 / wehinger/r6pnw_wenatchee@fs.fed.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionRestore channel conditions and enegy balance in headwater streams in the Cabin Creek Watershed by dissipating flow energy, increasing sediment storage, and stabilizing streambed and banks, benefitting downstream anadromous habitat.
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
9801005 Yakima Fisheries Project/acclimation and release facility Improving strongholds for wild salmon reproduction and rearing

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 3 specialists, six-person field crew, site surveys, aviation safety manager $32,000
Supplies laser level, tripod, misc. tools $2,000
Travel $2,000
Subcontractor Helicopter services contractor; Self-Loader, dump truck and excavator services contractor; Sawyer contractor $50,000
$86,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$86,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$86,000
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: Project is three-phase, attacking high priority reaches in first year. After monitoring spring run-off interaction with structures, we will develop a schedule to implement phase II based on those findings. Similar scheduling will be done for phase III.


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:

Management Issue: Explain if cost sharing with Plum Creek was considered, because although there is checkerboard ownership, they share the same watershed.

Technical Issue: Need to more clearly explain what the strategic action is – confusion regarding moving large wood into tributaries by helicopter, but then using an excavator to do what?

Management Issue: Note to managers to determine if the USFS should fund the work.

Technical Issue: Need to demonstrate that the effects that cause the problem have been taken care of, or are fixable with these methods.

Technical Issue: Approach is right to attack headwaters.


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

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).

Budget constraints. Proposal was found to be technically sound and appropriate but was deferred because other work was judged more urgent and funds were not adequate for all needed work.


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is not justified biologically. The structures will be expensive to maintain over time. It is good that watershed analysis was done but the proposal does not clearly describe how the analysis was used. They need to site more literature on the success of the approach. Why should BPA pay for repairing logging damage (policy)?