FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 200106500
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 |
|---|---|
| 23024 Narrative | Narrative |
| Columbia Cascade: Methow Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Cascade: Methow Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Hancock Springs Passage and Habitat Restoration Improvements |
| Proposal ID | 200106500 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Joel Hubble |
| Mailing address | 771 Pence Road Yakima, WA 98902 |
| Phone / email | 5099965291 / hubble@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lynn Hatcher |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | Increase juvenile salmonid access to, and enhance the habitat of a spring fed off-channel to the upper Methow River. |
| Target species | spring chinook, steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.5415 | -120.341 | Hancock Springs in Okanogan County |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Increase the number of juvenile spring chinook and steelhead utilizing Hancock Springs. | a. Remove the old culvert and replace it with one that meets WDFW juvenile salmonid passage criteria. b. Restore existing riparian and instream habitat. c. Conduct out-year monitoring and evaluation on juvenile salmonid utilization of the spring system | a. 1 month. b. 1 month. c. 12 months for the first complete monitoring cycle. | $49,941 | |
| 2. Increase the overwinter survival of juvenile spring chinook and steelhead in the Methow River. | a. Same task as for Objective 1 apply to Objective 2. | $0 |
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 |
|---|---|
| $26,000 | $26,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 0.25 biologist and technician, .16 bookkeeper | $17,732 |
| Fringe | $3,187 | |
| Supplies | culvert (4.6k), pump screen (2k), v-weir (1k), m&e equipment and supplies (7k) | $14,600 |
| Travel | $0 | |
| Indirect | $7,922 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: backhoe operator for in-channel work | $1,200 |
| Subcontractor | Engineer design work for culvert, and equipment, materials, and labor to supplement the SRFB grant | $5,300 |
| $49,941 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $49,941 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $49,941 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Okanogan County | survey work for culvert replacement, assist in design work for new culvert, culvert removal and installation | $12,000 | in-kind |
| SRFB Grant | Design armoured watering points (3), construct livestock exclusion fence and revegetation work | $13,854 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Fundable, ranked at the top of the B list. This proposal would replace a culvert in Wolf Creek that blocks migrations of listed spring Chinook and steelhead into the upper two-thirds of Hancock Springs system (4200 linear feet), the lower one-third of which (1100 linear feet) is a significant rearing area for juvenile salmonids. Wolf Creek is a tributary of the Methow River and stands at the lowermost limit of spring chinook spawning there. The M and E plan is good for a short proposal. The sponsor's provided a response to the ISRP's comments in the High Priority Review about what the quantitative biological effects of opening up this area might be. The response included an estimate based on EDT analysis. The sponsor's response also somewhat addressed the ISRP's question about the location of the project but a map and a more detailed description of adjacent habitat would have been helpful. They also provided a response regarding potential impacts of native resident populations above the culvert. They were unable to locate data and suggested that a survey could be done in the area. The ISRP agrees that a survey should be completed.Comment:
Comment: