FY 1999 proposal 199607706
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Lolo Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 199607706 |
| Organization | USFS, Clearwater National Forest (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Anne H. Connor |
| Mailing address | 12730 Highway 12 Orofino, ID 83544 |
| Phone / email | 2084764541 / aconnor/r1_clearwater@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Restore the Lolo Creek Watershed by continuing to obliterate excess roads that are a current or potential source of sediment delivery and stream degradation. |
| 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 |
|
$24,200 |
| Fringe |
|
$6,344 |
| Tag |
|
$1,878 |
| Travel |
|
$7,213 |
| Indirect |
|
$48,000 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $87,635 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $87,635 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $87,635 |
| 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: Existing schedules for Fiscal Year 1999 may change due to weather conditions. All on-the-ground projects occur in mountainous areas at elevations up to 5500 feet above sea level where unpredictable weather patterns may occur.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Pass (Fundable)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Explain how this project matches with the FY98 project – is this misnumbered?Management Issue: Management flag of whether this is and in-lieu issue for overhead and personnel costs.
Management Issue: Explain how this project is coordinated with 9607702.
Technical Issue: Explain the "logistic restrictions" referenced in the proposal.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Defer
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
These proposals (199607702 and 199607706) adequately describe the problems and the likely benefits to fish and wildlife. However, each also has some negative aspects, as detailed below. Methods for measuring reduced sediment delivery to the stream are not adequately described. This proposal lacks a good monitoring plan. The watershed analysis should be done before the restoration activities, not after. The roads that will be de-commissioned are not well described. Do these roads cause the sediment problems?