FY 2000 proposal 20005
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
20005 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | West Fisher Watershed Restoration |
Proposal ID | 20005 |
Organization | USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest - Libby Ranger District (USFS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Steve Wegner |
Mailing address | 12557 Hwy 37 N Libby, MT 59923 |
Phone / email | 4062935991 / swegner/r1_kootenai@fs.fed.us |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Kootenai |
Short description | Enhancement of the West Fisher watershed will accomplish numerous goals towards the recovery of endangered species. The watershed is a priority bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout recovery basin in the middle Kootenai region. Grizzly bears, mule deer |
Target species | Bull trout, Westslope Cutthroat trout, Torrent sculpin, Grizzly bear, Bald eagle, elk, and Mule deer |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1996 | USFS acquired 21,422 acres in numerous watersheds, including the West Fisher to provide for recovery of the grizzly bear. |
1997 | USFS and PCTC complete 3,500 feet of stream channel stabilization to help lower fine sediment inputs and stabilize the channel at the major access road crossing. |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | Project CORs, 5 technicians | $22,000 |
Fringe | $0 | |
Supplies | $0 | |
NEPA | District NEPA team | $88,000 |
Construction | 1 stream channel stabilization project and complete 7 miles of road obliteration | $125,000 |
Indirect | Forest Service overhead | $41,862 |
Other | Contract preparation and administration, stream project design, lab fees, vehicle, wire, attractant | $11,250 |
$288,112 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $288,112 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $288,112 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
USFS | Facilities, supplies, materials, and computer support | $50,000 | unknown |
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:
Recommendation: Do not fund. Technically inadequate proposal. Priority of sites to be restored is not justified, benefits to fish and wildlife are not justified, and BPA funding is not justified.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:
Screening Criteria: no- It doesn't meet criteria 1B, almost exclusively wildlife benefits.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.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Land acquisition activities are not clearly described. For what will the land be exchanged?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:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];