Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Beaver CR Campground Rehabilitation |
| Proposal ID | 29020 |
| Organization | Okanogan Conservation District (Okanogan CD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Bob Anderson |
| Mailing address | 1251 S. 2nd Ave Okanogan Wa. 98844 |
| Phone / email | 5094220855 / bob-anderson@wa.nacdnet.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Craig Nelson |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Restore riparian area of Beaver CR campground by building 1300 feet of fencing to keep users away from stream bank. Plant as needed riparian species within the fenced area to speed restoration of riparian zone. Build hitching rails. |
| Target species | Steelhead and Chinook Salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 48.2365 |
-120.0274 |
NW 1/4 of NE 1/4, Sec24, Twn34 Rge 22 E W.M. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Action 153 |
NMFS |
BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1996 |
Jobs for the Enviroment DNR Grant to perform restoration activities |
| 1997 |
JFE grant to do riparian fencing and restoration |
| 1998 |
JFE grant to do riparian fencing and restoration |
| 1999 |
JITW grant to perform riparian fencing and restoration |
| 1999 |
DOE grant to create watershed management plan for Okanogan Basin |
| 1999 |
DOE grant to create base line data on water quality in sub-basins of the Okanogan Basin |
| 1999 |
DOE grant to implement Irrigation Water Management in the Okanogan Basin |
| 2000 |
SRFB grant to survey streams in Okanogan County for fish passage barriers |
| 2000 |
SRFB grant to reconstruct 5 irrigation diversions to make them passible to fish |
| 2001 |
DOE grant to implement Irrigation Water Management in the Methow |
| 2001 |
DOE grant to provide for Irrigation systems upgrades in selected basins |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
This request is not related to other BPA projects |
|
| 0 |
|
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Planning and Design work completed |
|
|
$0 |
|
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| provide secure tie facilities |
purchase treated materials & build tie racks |
5days |
$6,835 |
|
| develop additional campsites |
level sites w/ cat, purchase and spread crushed gravel |
2days |
$3,895 |
Yes |
|
construct picnic tables (5) |
2days |
$3,718 |
|
|
construct/purchase and install 10 campfire stoves |
5days |
$11,357 |
|
|
build and install interpretive/ information sign |
2 days |
$2,893 |
|
| build pole riparian exclusion fence |
cut/ gather needed poles |
5days |
$5,957 |
|
|
build fence |
5days |
$5,957 |
|
| enhance riparian vegetation |
purchase and plant riparian species |
4days |
$7,986 |
|
|
water plants |
one day per week as needed in dry season |
$11,357 |
|
| keep accurate records |
bookkeeping |
20 hrs |
$490 |
|
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Irrigate plantings as needed, interplant as needed |
4 |
5 |
$10,650 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $5,325 | $5,325 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 28 days of work for 5 people plus watering |
$30,354 |
| Fringe |
|
$10,117 |
| Supplies |
|
$9,389 |
| Travel |
|
$999 |
| Indirect |
|
$5,641 |
| Subcontractor |
cat time and crushed rock |
$3,500 |
| Other |
administrative |
$445 |
| $60,445 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $60,445 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $60,445 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Back Country Horseman |
provide poles |
$3,600 |
in-kind |
|
labor |
$3,000 |
in-kind |
| King County Outdoor Sportman |
labor |
$2,500 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. No response is needed. The proposal does not demonstrate a significant benefit to fish and wildlife because of the size of the riparian area to be protected and the unlikely change in the use. The project might be funded later under #29046 if it ranks out high in priority in the CRMP. It is unclear if this project has been identified as a high priority project in a watershed assessment of the subbasin.
This proposal lacks much in detail and content (e.g., no resumes) and no monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan to see if the riparian fencing and replanting works. The proposal is good in that there is good community support with volunteer materials and labor. The section on relationships to other projects could have better identified the other Beaver Creek work and proposals presented in the WDFW proposal (29010) and placed this work in that context (how important is the riparian problem at the campground relative to barriers, for example). It is unclear what permits and NEPA work are needed for this project.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. A response was not warranted. The proposal does not demonstrate a significant benefit to fish and wildlife because of the size of the riparian area to be protected and the unlikely change in the use. The project might be funded later under #29046 if it ranks out high in priority in the CRMP. It is unclear if this project has been identified as a high priority project in a watershed assessment of the subbasin.
This proposal lacks much in detail and content (e.g., no resumes) and no monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan to see if the riparian fencing and replanting works. The proposal is good in that there is good community support with volunteer materials and labor. The section on relationships to other projects could have better identified the other Beaver Creek work and proposals presented in the WDFW proposal (29010) and placed this work in that context (how important is the riparian problem at the campground relative to barriers, for example). It is unclear what permits and NEPA work are needed for this project.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Improve riparian conditions along a short stretch of Beaver Creek, an important Methow tributary. Comments
A substantial portion of the costs are associated with adding campground amenities rather than improving the state of the natural environment. Managing human and livestock use of streamside areas should be a responsibility of the state - the campground owner. If BPA funds are used, they should only be applied to actions that will improve stream health.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Recommendation:
D
Date:
Jul 26, 2002
Comment:
Do not recommend
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: