FY 2000 proposal 20005

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Either an Environmental Analysis or EIS will be required for the land exchange objective. This process usually requires three years. The burning objective will be covered under a separate analysis. The stream channel work, tree girdling, and road objectives have been partially examined in other project documents but will require a decision memo to complete the work.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Comments: This is a new watershed restoration proposal for West Fisher Creek, a tributary of the Kootenai River. The main components are purchase of about 6 square miles of the watershed, and road stabilization and obliteration (the latter of about 15 miles of road). There is also a stream channel characterization component.

This is a poor proposal that does not justify why BPA should pay for the proposed work. It adequately cites the FWP, listings of species, recovery plans, and the FS Forest Plan. However, it does not relate the proposal to any other BPA projects, even the Montana proposal to obtain easements in the Fisher Valley. The background relates watershed effects to logging and mining, not to Libby Dam impacts. This would seem to be the Forest Service's own responsibility. The rationale adequately links the work to the FWP's native species goals, but to Libby Dam only through railroad relocations. The project relationships narrative relates the work to FS restoration projects (good), but not to BPA-funded ones. The primary objectives seem to be to have BPA pay for NEPA reviews of land exchange (why BPA??) and some sort of road obliteration and stream rehabilitation that should be FS's obligation.

The technical work proposed is quite sketchy; it does not appear that funds are being requested for the land purchase (or swap?). The relative allocation of project funds to channel stabilization and road obliteration is not indicated. There is serious concern as to whether and how both channel restoration and road obliteration will be conducted. Both activities have the potential, if not carefully executed, to exacerbate rather than mitigate damage to the stream system. In neither case is any protocol referenced. Certainly, in the case of road obliteration, the USFS must have a procedures manual of some kind. What follow-up monitoring has been conducted where the procedures proposed have previously been applied? The bear monitoring seems acceptable, but the fish monitoring is inadequate.

There also is a broader issue of "Why West Fisher Creek?" Specifically, in the context of Upper Kootenai restoration efforts, what prioritization has been made of the various opportunities, and can an argument be made that this location is at or near the top of that list? Although the proposed work may well be meritorious, the proposal lacks essential details and justification; the proposers would be well advised to spend more effort in crafting a more convincing proposal for next year's solicitation.

Comment:

Comment:

Technical Criteria: no- 50% of the project costs relates grizzly objectives, to criteria 6.

Programmatic Criteria: no-It is inappropriate to fund mitigation for poor forestry practices.

Milestone Criteria: no- It is not connected to the loss statement , nor does it have a long term mitigation plan.

General Comments: Duplication in the goals of this project and the overall goals of 20028. This needs collaboration. There should be a cost share with the wildlife mitigation trust. The cost share itself is with the USFS. A question to benefit of fish when 1/3 of the cost goes to NEPA.

Comment:

This project focuses on wildlife but Montana wildlife mitigation activities are funded through the Montana Wildlife Mitigation Trust Fund.

The Forest Service already has funding for road management. It is probably not BPA's responsibility to pay for Forest Service road obliteration.

Comment: