FY 2000 proposal 20037
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Improvement of Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek |
| Proposal ID | 20037 |
| 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 | 5094227427 / Anadromo@televar.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | This project would include the removal of railroad debris and rubble and allow anadromous fish to access about 26 miles of spawning and rearing habitat. Also, to include improvements in land management activities and instream restoration proactices. |
| Target species | Upper Columbia River summer steelhead |
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 |
|---|
| 9609200 |
Restore and enhance anadromous fish populations in Salmon Creek |
Restoration of Upper Mid-Columbia summer steelhead |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
2 Part Time Employees |
$30,000 |
| Fringe |
30% of salary (based upon 1998 figures) |
$9,000 |
| Supplies |
Hand tools, gloves, hip boots, etc. |
$500 |
| Operating |
Fuel, Vehicle servicing |
$2,500 |
| Capital |
none |
$0 |
| NEPA |
Assisting NMFS in Biological Opinion |
$1,000 |
| Travel |
Updates and presentations |
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
39.2% of salary (based upon 1997 figures |
$11,760 |
| Other |
none |
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
heavy equipment and operator |
$292,901 |
| $349,661 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $349,661 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $349,661 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Natural Resource Conservation Service |
Engineering design for barrier removal and implementation of restoration structures and land management strategies |
$0 |
unknown |
| Natural Resource Conservation Service |
Engineering design for barrier removal and implementation of restoration structures and land management strategies |
$350,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: National Marine Fisheries Biological Opinion
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund (High priority)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund (High priority). Review after one year to assess progress.
Comments:
Last year the ISRP recommended that this proposal include a watershed assessment. This year the project sponsors have provided the information needed to justify the project. The objectives are clear, methods are well explained, and monitoring is included. This could lead to 26 more miles of steelhead production habitat and associated risks appear small.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technically feasible fix to a passage problem.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The proposal emphasizes structures and indirect means of addressing what appear to be impacts caused by ongoing management programs. Perhaps it should address improving the management program as well.High cost for the benefit returned. What is the long-term biological benefit or return on investment?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]