FY 2000 proposal 20001
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Remove 23 Migrational Barriers and Restore Instream and Riparian Habitat on Chumstick Creek |
| Proposal ID | 20001 |
| 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 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Wenatchee |
| Short description | Enhance and restore fish passage in the Chumstick Drainage. 23 culverts will be replaced and realigned on private land within the watershed. Instream and riparian habitat will also be enhanced within these reaches. |
| Target species | Species that will be affected include chinook, steelhead, bull trout, westslope cutthroat, and re-introduced coho. |
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 |
|---|
| 99023 |
Culvert Replacement of Chumstick Creek (Highway209) |
Replacing a 153 foot long culvert on Chumstick Creek, one mile upstream of the confluence with the Wenatchee River. |
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 |
To be supplied by USFWS and NRCS $121,875.00 |
$0 |
| Fringe |
To be supplied by NRCS and USFWS = $30,000.00 |
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| NEPA |
To be supplied by USFWS 20 bio-days @ $625 per day = $12,500.00 |
$0 |
| Construction |
|
$300,000 |
| Travel |
to be supplied by NRCS and USFWS
$6,000.00 |
$0 |
| Other |
Training |
$5,000 |
| $305,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $305,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $305,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| USFWS |
NEPA costs |
$12,500 |
unknown |
|
Travel |
$6,000 |
unknown |
|
Monitoring $10,000 per year for 10 years |
$100,000 |
unknown |
|
Personnel and benefits |
$75,938 |
unknown |
| NRCS |
Personnel and benefits |
$75,938 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: It will be necessary that all instream work be completed during the work window established by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund (High)
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund (High). Fund for one year as proposed, then re-review.
Comments:
This proposal is an improvement over last year's proposal, in that a more complete watershed assessment has been completed. Overall, this project has made a good case for funding (although it is not perfectly clear why BPA should fund it and not a land or transportation management agency). This offers good potential benefits to a number of target species. The Wenatchee has a run of summer chinook and this would be an area where additional spawning and rearing habitat would provide benefits. They do a good job describing a conceptual foundation. Cost sharing and coordination looks good. More details could have been provided on the process that will be used to locate the habitat improvement projects and the monitoring plan. What are the ecosystem effects of removing these blocks? Will it open bull trout areas to non-native species?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Replacing and recovering habitat addresses a primary strategy within the subbasin, however, there is no comprehensive description how the project fits into the overall watershed. A map would have been helpful with a priority list of where culverts will be replaced. Proponents have not addressed ongoing O&M needs. Good objectives, however, there is no overall integration with other important variables in the watershed. They have not described how the changes will contribute to the overall salmon production within the watershed. We would like to see the project get started and report how fish are reacting to the initial actions. Our recommendation would be to start at the downstream most site and work upstream, observing fish utilization. We would also like to see a significant cost share in capital construction costs. We've reduced the budget to reflect our desire to see a reduction in number of culverts installed during the first year. Once progress has been proven, additional culverts could be added
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal is confusing and contains a lot of literature review and duplication. The products and responsibilities are not clear. What alternatives have been considered (e.g. pre-fabricated bridges versus removing and replacing culverts)?
What are the fish recovery outcomes? How much biological return will there be for BPA's investment?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
