FY 1999 proposal 9110

Additional documents

TitleType
9110 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAssess Resident Fish Within Toppenish Creek and Satus Creek
Proposal ID9110
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YIN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGeorge Lee
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / gdl@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short description
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
9603501 Satus Watershed Restoration
Upper Toppenish Creek project (if approved)

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 Bio .5 @$16151.00; FT fish tech @ $19656.00; 10% bkkr @$2525.00 $38,332
Fringe @25.3% $9,698
Supplies office; field gear, $1,500
Operating vehicle rental $5,000
Capital Electro-shocker $3,500
Travel $300
Indirect @23.5% $12,885
Subcontractor $0
$71,215
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$71,215
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$71,215
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: Toppenish Creek and Satus Creek are tributaries of the Yakima River and flow through the Yakama Indian Reservation. It is assumed that for this reason there should not be any constraints other than natural causes, such as the weather, spring freshets.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: A 1980 study surveyed resident fish in two tributaries of the Yakima River. Steelhead return to the Satus basin where there is an ongoing watershed project.

Questions/Answers:

Will you look at non-salmonids? Answer: Yes, we will look at all species including bull trout. Historically there were no bull trout here.

Can you give a brief summary of the anadromous fish work in these two creeks? Answer: 80% of the steelhead in the Yakima River go into the Satus watershed. The Toppenish drainage has a lot of irrigation, unscreened diversions and a wildlife refuge.

Who operates the hydro project? Answer: It is a BOR irrigation project.

There is some frustration that anadromous fish projects have ignored resident fish. Why should we fund resident fish work here as opposed to other drainages? Answer: Satus Creek is a major steelhead stream.

Screening Criteria: No. The project does not address a specific resident fish measure.

Technical Criteria: No. The objectives and tasks are not clearly developed. There is nothing in the methods section.

Programmatic Criteria: Yes. The work may be valuable, but it should be assimilated into other work in the area from a watershed perspective. This is primarily an anadromous fish area.

General Comment: The project does not appear to coordinate with other ongoing or past work.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is incomplete. The narrative does not contain enough information for the project to be reviewed on its technical merits.