Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Rasor Ranch Acquisition/Crab Creek Watershed Restoration Project |
| Proposal ID | 9116 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia National Refuge (USFWS, CNWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Greg Hughes |
| Mailing address | 735 East Main St., P.O. Drawer F Othello, WA 99344 |
| Phone / email | 5094882668 / Greg_Hughes@fws.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Columbia / Upper Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Protect and enhance the Crab Creek watershed and its fish, wildlife, water, archaelogical, geological and educational resources through partnerships, acquisition, and management of the 4,285 acre Rasor Ranch. |
| 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 |
|---|
|
See Section 7 under rationale and significance |
|
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 |
|
$25,000 |
| Capital |
Purchase 1660.82 acres of shrub-steppe ($350K); restoration ($400K) |
$750,000 |
| Subcontractor |
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; U.S.D.A. Natural Res. Cons. Service; Ducks Unlimited Inc.; Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife |
$0 |
| $775,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $775,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $775,000 |
| 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: NRCS purchases easement from private landowner; then USBR purchases land with and without easement from land owner; then BPA purchases land and USFWS manages the land and works with NRCS and DU to restore wetland, riparian, and upland habitats.
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 the specific restoration activities and techniques.Management Issue: Management flag – consider if this presents an in-lieu problem (using BPA funds to purchase land in a wildlife refuge).
Technical Issue: Explain how this project is really a watershed project.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Need reduced by $330,000 because acquisition is moving forward in 98. $50,000 reduction in planned enhancements
Recommendation:
Adequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The revised proposal was deemed adequate because it improved the description of flood simulation. However, the monitoring plans remain vague. The original proposal includes good technical justification, describes the specific property to be purchased, and attempts to integrate fish and wildlife. The methods, monitoring and relation to other projects are not described with sufficient detail.