FY 2000 proposal 20083
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate, restore and enhance 14 miles of instream and riparian habitat on Lower Crab Creek |
| Proposal ID | 20083 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Kate Terrell |
| Mailing address | 517 S. Buchanan Street Moses Lake, WA 98837 |
| Phone / email | 5097656125 / Kate_Terrell@fws.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Crab |
| Short description | Evaluate, rehabilitate and enhance 14 miles of in-stream and riparian habitat along Lower Crab Creek. This will enhance spawning habitat for adult anadromous salmonids and improve the rearing and resting habitat for juveniles. Habitat improvements may r |
| Target species | Species that will be affected include chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), resident fish species as well as waterfowl, raptors and ungulates. |
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 |
|---|
| 9502800 |
Restore Moses Lake Recreational Fisheries |
|
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 |
|
$58,704 |
| Fringe |
|
$14,064 |
| Supplies |
Survey Equipment |
$7,613 |
| NEPA |
Cost Share |
$0 |
| Construction |
See capital acquisitions |
$0 |
| Travel |
Cost Share |
$0 |
| Indirect |
Contract Administration |
$17,825 |
| Other |
Training |
$4,500 |
| $102,706 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $102,706 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $102,706 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| USFWS |
|
$0 |
unknown |
|
Vehicle GSA |
$2,000 |
unknown |
|
Environmental Compliance |
$1,516 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: It will be necessary to complete all instream work during the work window established by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. A heavy snow pack could delay the survey.
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). OK for a multi-year review cycle, review in FY2002 for reporting of results.
Comments:
This was an excellent proposal. It appears well coordinated and describes relationships to other project. The proposal is based on the results of a watershed assessment and includes a monitoring plan and noteworthy local education approach. Although Crab Creek is a highly degraded area, it is unique geographically and is near the Hanford Reach where a healthy population of fall chinook is located. Consequently, restoration work would be of high programmatic value. The ISRP strongly endorsed funding this proposal.
The Rosgen method may not be appropriate to a natural marshland; the proposal should describe how it applies. The methods could have been described in more detail.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
The causal mechanisms for the temperature problem are not described. Other funding sources may be available (CREP, WHIP, et al.).
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposals 20071 and 20083 appear to be duplicate efforts. 20083 is considerably more expensive ($121,000/ mile) and has less definition of biological outcomes. What is the return on investment for restoration or mitigation?The stated objectives are actually tasks and there are not any time-referenced biological objectives.
Recommendation:
Rank 7
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
Rank Comments:
This is an excellent, well coordinated proposal based on a watershed assessment. Crab Creek is a highly degraded area, but is unique geographically and is near the healthy fall chinook population in the Hanford Reach. Restoration work would be of high programmatic value to the region although site-specific.
Recommendation:
Rank 7
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
This is an excellent, well coordinated proposal based on a watershed assessment. Crab Creek is a highly degraded area, but is unique geographically and is near the healthy fall chinook population in the Hanford Reach. Restoration work would be of high programmatic value to the region although site-specific.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];