FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23025
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 |
|---|---|
| 23025 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore anadromous fish passage at Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek, tributary to Wind River |
| Proposal ID | 23025 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation, contact Lee Carlson (lcarlson@yakama.com, 509-865-6262) (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Ken Wieman |
| Mailing address | Wind River Admin. Site, 1262 Hemlock Road Carson, WA 98610 |
| Phone / email | 5094273250 / kwieman@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lynn Hatcher, YN (lynn@yakama.com) |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Wind |
| Short description | Develop and implement alternative for removal of Hemlock Dam |
| Target species | Steelhead, chinook, cutthroat |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.8 | -121.92 | Hemlock Dam at Trout Creek |
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
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 11 resource specialists for IDT | $167,410 |
| Supplies | $700 | |
| Travel | $500 | |
| Indirect | Scoping, alt. development, EIS | $8,153 |
| Subcontractor | Consultants, GIS/mapping, photography, surveying | $44,000 |
| $220,763 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $220,763 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $220,763 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USFS | equipment | $1,775 | in-kind |
| USFS | labor | $17,900 | in-kind |
| USFS | material | $13,064 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding. This is a feasibility study. As demonstrated during the Columbia Gorge Province Review, Hemlock Dam is the number one limiting factor in the Wind River subbasin. The Wind River watershed assessment and restoration effort is sound and well coordinated, and this dam is clearly a significant limiting factor that would be a benefit to remove. Historically, the Wind River has been an outstanding steelhead stream. They should consider potential impacts on native resident stocks if any are present above the culverts.Comment:
This proposal would fund assessment work and would not provide direct benefits.