FY 1999 proposal 9017

Additional documents

TitleType
9017 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleImprove Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek
Proposal ID9017
OrganizationColville Confederated Tribes (CCT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameChristopher J. Fisher
Mailing addressP.O. Box 862 Omak, WA 98841
Phone / email5096348689 / anadromo@televar.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Mid-Columbia / Okanogan
Short descriptionRemoval 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
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
none

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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:

Comments:

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.