FY 2000 proposal 20005

Additional documents

TitleType
20005 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleWest Fisher Watershed Restoration
Proposal ID20005
OrganizationUSDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest - Libby Ranger District (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSteve Wegner
Mailing address12557 Hwy 37 N Libby, MT 59923
Phone / email4062935991 / swegner/r1_kootenai@fs.fed.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMountain Columbia / Kootenai
Short descriptionEnhancement 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 speciesBull trout, Westslope Cutthroat trout, Torrent sculpin, Grizzly bear, Bald eagle, elk, and Mule deer
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

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.


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];