FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23029
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 |
|---|---|
| 23029 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Decommission ten miles of roads in the Wind River Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 23029 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation, contact Lee Carlson ([email protected], 509-865-6262) (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Bengt Coffin |
| Mailing address | Mt. Adams Ranger District, 2455 Highway 141 Trout Lake, WA 98650 |
| Phone / email | 5093953384 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lynn Hatcher, YN Fisheries ([email protected]) |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Wind |
| Short description | Decommission 10 miles of roads in the Wind River subbasin including culvert removal and slope stabilization. |
| Target species | steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.86 | -121.85 | Wind subbasin |
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 |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| $5,800 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: average cost for decommissioning roads is $6620 | $66,200 |
| Indirect | Architectural and engineering costs | $24,000 |
| Other | monitoring | $13,800 |
| $104,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $104,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $104,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS | NEPA | $0 | in-kind |
| USFS | S&M surveys | $0 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal received a low evaluation because the specific roads slated for decommissioning were not identified. The identification of ten miles seems arbitrary. If this is high priority why didn't it show up in the Columbia Gorge provincial review? Was it funded under Watershed Council efforts? Similarly, they do not specify the ESA-listed species, although they refer to winter and summer steelhead. There is inadequate discussion of potential benefits. They should consider potential impacts on native resident stocks if any are present above the culverts.Comment:
An in lieu concern was voiced in the technical review, that as a federal agency the US Forest Service has more ability to secure federal funds to correct problems arising from its management in order to comply with federal laws (ESA).