Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improve Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek |
| Proposal ID | 9017 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Christopher J. Fisher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 862 Omak, WA 98841 |
| Phone / email | 5096348689 / anadromo@televar.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Mid-Columbia / Okanogan |
| Short description | Removal of debris and rubble in the stream channel, created by construction of a railroad, will allow anadromous fish to migrate over Mission Falls and access upstream spawning habitat. Restore bank stability and riparian vegetation along Omak Creek |
| 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 |
|---|
|
none |
|
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 |
1 Full time employee; 3 Seasonal employees |
$40,000 |
| Fringe |
30% of salary (based upon 1998 figures) |
$12,000 |
| Supplies |
Hand tools, gloves, etc. |
$500 |
| Operating |
Fuel, Vehicle servicing |
$2,000 |
| Capital |
none |
$0 |
| Tag |
none |
$0 |
| Travel |
Updates and presentations |
$1,000 |
| Indirect |
39.2% of salary (based upon 1997 figures) |
$15,680 |
| Subcontractor |
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) |
$175,000 |
| $246,180 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $246,180 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $246,180 |
| 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: For objective 1 the reach may need to be revisited after the initial removal of rubble occurs. This is because rubble, that previously was not a barrier before the first removal, may become a barrier after the rubble has been removed.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes: This project is inappropriately designated as a Flow/survival project type. It is primarily a watershed project and should so indicate. Difficult to evaluate because criteria are insufficient to fully evaluate watershed projects.
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: Need more complete information on how benefits will be quantified. What is production potential of blocked area? How many steelhead will benefit initially? What is considered to be the likely long term outcome in terms of harvestable surplus?
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Incomplete: It is not clear from the proposal that the instream structure work is justified. If the upstream activities that resulted in the habitat degradation are being corrected, the stream may correct itself and not require structural work.
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Budget constraints
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The proposal included a good description of removing railroad rubble but did not describe in sufficient detail how the project would improve riparian areas. The goals of the project seemed worthwhile.