FY 1999 proposal 9102

Additional documents

TitleType
9102 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAhtanum Creek Watershed Assessment
Proposal ID9102
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YIN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn Hatcher
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / lynn@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionConduct watershed assessment in the agricultural portion of the Ahtanum Creek watershed, to complete assessment of entire watershed and facilitate restoration of salmon and steelhead.
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

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 fish bio (lead) 0.5 FTE, wildl. bio 0.5, hydrol. 0.25, GIS bio 1.0, field tech 2.0, ofc 0.5 $145,938
Fringe 25.3% $36,922
Supplies office and field supplies, GIS computer and and field laptop plus software, survey equipment $21,000
Operating vehicles, office space, maintenance, utilities, insurance $23,950
Travel (and training) $2,000
Indirect 23.5% calculated on all items on this budget $55,180
Subcontractor $5,000
$289,990
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$289,990
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$289,990
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: Field data gathering may be constrained by weather or by private property access problems off the Yakama Reservation. The project will be able to rely partly on data already acquired as part of the current Yakima subbasin adjudication process.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Clearly describe the methodology that will be used for the assessment (e.g., federal six-step guide and the Washington State Watershed Assessment manual versus a walk-through).

Explain how the cost for conducting the assessment ($290K) for a 171 square mile watershed is not excessive; and whether less costly alternatives to perform the assessment were considered.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Fund only the assessment for now
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is the sort of planning and assessment project that should be completed before proposing restoration projects. The watershed analysis should be completed first before funding for additional work is funded. It describes a heavy reliance on instream flow incremental method (IFIM), but this method has not been proven effective in all ecosystems. If they use this method, they must calibrate it locally.