FY 2000 proposal 20144
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 |
|---|---|
| 20144 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Create Stream Reference Condition Data Set for the Upper Flathead R Basin |
| Proposal ID | 20144 |
| Organization | Flathead National Forest |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Pan Van Eimeren |
| Mailing address | Hungry Horse Rd, P.O. Box 190340 Hungry Horse, MT 59919 |
| Phone / email | 4063873863 / pvaneime/rl_flathead@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Columbia / Flathead |
| Short description | Develops reference conditions from various Rosgen channel types to provide baseline data for stream restoration projects and provides a large data set for watershed assessments to determine stream habitat potential. |
| Target species | Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout |
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9101903 | Hungry Horse Mitigation- Watershed Restoration and Monitoring | This project would provide baseline data for watershed restoration projects identified and implemented from this project. |
| 9401002 | Hungry Horse Mitigation- Excessive drawdowns | Same as above |
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 | $20,000 | |
| Fringe | $2,500 | |
| Supplies | $500 | |
| Travel | $3,000 | |
| $26,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $26,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $26,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flathead N.F. | Training/additional crew | $10,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. The proposal is inadequate and not technically justified.Comments: This proposal is for a new project, intended for a single year, to survey channel conditions, apparently with the intent of inferring reference stream conditions. The focus would be on the South Fork of the Flathead. This could be useful work but the proposal does not ensure that it will result in benefits to fish and wildlife.
Survey of Rosgen channel types will determine baselines for existing range of variability in stream channels in relation to reference sets of pristine streams stratified across similar geologies. This is intended to be used to assess whether or not rehabilitation measures are needed. Rosgen's system works well in the Rockies. The work will be done in the standardized format of the USFS.
The end product could perhaps be quite useful, and the cost is low. However, the proposal is poorly written, unpersuasive, and CBFWA itself notes that restoration efforts are progressing "fairly well" without this action. Data about specific locations to be evaluated (how many miles of stream, what stream orders – i.e. small tributaries vs. main stem), and other relevant details are missing. More importantly, there is no link to other funded (or proposed) projects, so it is not at all clear how results would be used, if at all. There appears to have been some link to ICBEMP, but the sponsor makes no effort to explain that linkage (were such surveys done elsewhere under ICBEMP, and if so, why not in the Flathead?).
This project could be a good adjunct to work already being undertaken (although it might be funded by the FS). To the exclusion of any other planning documents for the subbasin, only the FWP is referenced, although it cites relationships to two other projects for identification of baselines for their restoration work. Dates for the work seem to be confused. There is a good background of the need to characterize natural and existing conditions. The overall Technical and/or scientific background section of this proposal is very weak. Both the Proposal objectives and Methods sections are inadequate. It is responsive to the ISRP request for watershed assessments before habitat restoration. The rationale is primarily the ISRP request and interior basin standard procedures. The proposal notes complementary work on FS ICBEMP as well as BPA projects, but the narrative is inadequate principally because of its failure to explain objectives. Methods are given by reference rather than explanation. There is little description of facilities. There is cost sharing with FS, resumes are good, and the proposed budget appears reasonable.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical Criteria: no- The restoration efforts are going along fairly well without this. The results won't be very applicable because of the small sample size.
Programmatic Criteria: no-This doesn't appear to be a threat or need to fish population.
Milestone Criteria: no- It is only a one year project.
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The proposal makes a good case for the baseline survey.Provide a document when project is concluded showing how data are being used to drive restoration.
Is it appropriate for BPA to fund Forest Service stream inventory work (base operations and activities)?
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];