FY 1999 proposal 199607707
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Squaw and Papoose Watersheds |
| Proposal ID | 199607707 |
| 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 Squaw and Papoose Creek Watersheds 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 |
|
$33,439 |
| Supplies |
|
$7,024 |
| Travel |
|
$1,680 |
| Indirect |
|
$8,782 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$56,000 |
| $106,925 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $106,925 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $106,925 |
| 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:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Management Issue: Management flag of whether this is an in-lieu issue for overhead and personnel costs.Management Issue: Explain how this project is coordinated with 9607703.
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 (199607703 and 199607707) adequately describe the problems and the likely benefits to fish and wildlife. However, each also has some negative aspects, as detailed below. The proposals do not tell how reduction in sediment delivery will be measured. BPA should look at the budget. Is this cost sharing for BPA when Forest Service and NPT do the work and BPA is the funding source for both. It appears that in 1998, $109,328 will be spent to obliterate 10 miles of road. This is $10,900 per mile or 4 times as much as in project #9607706 (Lolo Watershed). Why the disparity?