FY 2000 proposal 20117
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
20117 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Yakima River Subbasin Assessment |
Proposal ID | 20117 |
Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Manager |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
Phone / email | 5098656262 / |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
Short description | Compile and evaluate existing fisheries and watershed information and perform field verification to prioritize protection, restoration and analysis needs throughout the Yakima River Subbasin, based on potential benefit to the fisheries resources. |
Target species | Yakima River chinook, coho, steelhead |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
20510 | Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Umbrella | Dependence of supplementation on habitat carrying capacity |
9803300 | Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed | |
9901300 | Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment | |
9803400 | Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin | |
9705000 | Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration | |
9705300 | Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration | |
926200 | Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project | |
9603501 | Satus Watershed Restoration | |
20547 | Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella | |
9705100 | Yakima Basin Side Channels |
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 | Project Manager, 640 hours, Bookkeeper, 80 hours | $15,311 |
Fringe | @ 25.3% | $3,874 |
Supplies | Miscellaneous supplies | $2,000 |
Operating | vehicles, fuel, repairs, insurance | $8,900 |
Indirect | @ 23.5% | $7,070 |
Subcontractor | $197,904 | |
$235,059 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $235,059 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $235,059 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Weather conditions will affect the timing of field studies; the initiation of the assessment is timed accordingly.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until deficiencies are correctedComments: A subbasin assessment is clearly needed. However, the proposal is vague about what it specifically plans to do. The proposal does not define the key questions or concepts that will be used to integrate disparate layers of information. For example, it is not clear how the list of social-economic studies, legislation, maps, etc. will be integrated with the other physical and biological information.
The background material on hydrologic conditions in the subbasin is not the most relevant information needed to justify this proposal. The background section should discuss the technical literature regarding watershed assessment procedures and results: Where have they been used, what alternative methods have been tried, which ones have been most and least successful? From this background, the proposal should define the kind of assessment most appropriate for the Yakima subbasin. It is unclear whether the watershed assessment proposed here would overlap with the assessment of off-channel habitats described in #9705100 or the 1997 work under #9704700.
The Proper Functioning Condition methodology, which relies on expert opinion, needs to be discussed and evaluated relative to alternative stream/riparian assessment techniques that are available. Considerable work has been done on evaluating stream and riparian habitat conditions throughout the Pacific Northwest. There is not scientific consensus about the PFC approach. The budget for the subcontract needs to be spelled out. It is the bulk of the project, yet the elements of the subcontract are not itemized. Most of the personnel assigned to this work would be hired under the subcontract. It is not possible to evaluate qualifications because the individuals have not been identified. Would two different teams or a single team be used for the work proposed under the Klickitat and Yakima subbasin assessments?
The criteria for establishing habitat priorities and "potential fisheries value" from the assessment data need to be described. The proposal should build a rationale for what data will be integrated to define high priority areas for protection. The use of the proposed assessment for developing future proposals and restoration activities should be discussed. Will ongoing projects be re-evaluated in light of the results? The proposal was submitted as a information dissemination/database proposal, but failed to directly address many of the criteria by which these kinds of proposal would be judged. These include describing the mechanism for assuring quality control, how widely used the assessment would be, and how the impact of the information would be measured.
The budgets for the Yakima and Klickitat assessments are the same, but the Yakima is significantly larger. Shouldn't the limiting factors have been determined before the supplementation program was implemented?
Comment:
Comment:
The WA SRT is not content that there is a need for additional comprehensive documents in this basin, however, this project is designed to meet the need and requirement of the NPPC to address watershed assessments. Enough information exists in this watershed to support a comprehensive document. The scope of this project should be limited to compiling and integrating existing data into a comprehensive watershed assessment. A similar study was conducted for YRBWEP in 1998-99 covering a review and synthesis of data related to instream flow provisions in the Yakima River Ecosystem. The watershed assessment would include information such as the report from the BOR that, for the most part, has already been developed.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal lacks detail.Not clear why additional monitoring is needed to assess watershed conditions since both the state and federal governments have already done this.
Tasks listed in methods section are redundant and not in a logical sequence.
Not clear how restoration activities will be monitored to gauge their effectiveness. No specific goals or targets in terms of habitat changes or fish productivity in response to restoration.
Why is the Little Naches important as a habitat for anadromous fish?
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];