Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Stabilizing Stream Channels in the Cabin Creek Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 9114 |
| Organization | U.S. Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Cle Elum Ranger District (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Bill Ehinger |
| Mailing address | 803 W 2nd Cle Elum WA 98922 |
| Phone / email | 5096744411 / wehinger/[email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Restore channel conditions and enegy balance in headwater streams in the Cabin Creek Watershed by dissipating flow energy, increasing sediment storage, and stabilizing streambed and banks, benefitting downstream anadromous habitat. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9801005 |
Yakima Fisheries Project/acclimation and release facility |
Improving strongholds for wild salmon reproduction and rearing |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
3 specialists, six-person field crew, site surveys, aviation safety manager |
$32,000 |
| Supplies |
laser level, tripod, misc. tools |
$2,000 |
| Travel |
|
$2,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Helicopter services contractor; Self-Loader, dump truck and excavator services contractor; Sawyer contractor |
$50,000 |
| $86,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $86,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $86,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Project is three-phase, attacking high priority reaches in first year. After monitoring spring run-off interaction with structures, we will develop a schedule to implement phase II based on those findings. Similar scheduling will be done for phase III.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Management Issue: Explain if cost sharing with Plum Creek was considered, because although there is checkerboard ownership, they share the same watershed.Technical Issue: Need to more clearly explain what the strategic action is – confusion regarding moving large wood into tributaries by helicopter, but then using an excavator to do what?
Management Issue: Note to managers to determine if the USFS should fund the work.
Technical Issue: Need to demonstrate that the effects that cause the problem have been taken care of, or are fixable with these methods.
Technical Issue: Approach is right to attack headwaters.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).
Budget constraints. Proposal was found to be technically sound and appropriate but was deferred because other work was judged more urgent and funds were not adequate for all needed work.
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is not justified biologically. The structures will be expensive to maintain over time. It is good that watershed analysis was done but the proposal does not clearly describe how the analysis was used. They need to site more literature on the success of the approach. Why should BPA pay for repairing logging damage (policy)?