FY 2000 proposal 199901200
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 |
|---|---|
| 199901200 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199901200 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Coordinate/Facilitate Watershed Project Planning/Implementation |
| Proposal ID | 199901200 |
| Organization | Kittitas-Yakima Resource Conservation and Development District (Ki-Yak) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Brenda McMurray |
| Mailing address | 32 N. 3rd Street, Suite 222 Yakima, WA 98901 |
| Phone / email | 5095767883 / h2oinfo@nwinfo.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Enhance Yakima River Watershed Interagency Council's cooperative efforts to implement Yakima River Watershed projects and activities which are compatible with biological needs of salmon, steelhead and other fish and wildlife. |
| Target species | Mid-Columbia River Steelhead, existing Chinook Salmon populations, Bull Trout |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Creation of the Yakima River Watershed Interagency Council (YRWIC) by the former watershed planning unit of the Yakima Basin, the Yakima River Watershed Council (YRWC). Integration of YRWIC as technical advisory group to the YRWC established. |
| 1997 | YRWIC develops initial list of habitat and salmon recovery related projects taking place in the Watershed, prioritizes resource needs of four subarea basins, identifies gaps where projects are needed. |
| 1998 | YRWIC meets monthly despite closure of YRWC. Broadens relationships with state salmon recovery efforts, a new local watershed planning unit, and the Watershed Information Center. Establishment of criteria for ranking watershed projects underway. |
| 1999 | Futher develop project ranking and habitat restoration/enhancement implementation processes (under proposal FY 99-01200) |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 20526 | Multi-Year Plan Yakima Anadromous Fish Plan |
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 | $31,837 | |
| Fringe | (20% of Personnel) | $6,367 |
| Supplies | $10,500 | |
| Operating | $12,000 | |
| Travel | $2,500 | |
| Indirect | 6 % of all items listed above | $3,792 |
| Subcontractor | Accounting Related | $3,500 |
| $70,496 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $70,496 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $70,496 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kittitas-Yakima Resource Conservation and Development | Watershed Information Center database and information systems and related office facilities | $11,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None
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 corrected. Specifically, if they are doing the coordination described in the proposal, why don't any of the habitat restoration proposals in the basin mention the YRWIC? What specific projects are being implemented under objective 2? They should list the limiting factors mentioned on page 12 and describe how the projects they endorse address those limiting factors.Comments: The proposal describes an important project that could have important positive effects on the salmonid habitat in the Yakima Basin. The proposal gives a good general description of the relationship to other projects. However, it lacks specificity. There are many habitat projects either ongoing or proposed in the Yakima Basin. The proposal should have stated some specific examples of its coordination and evaluation role with a few selected examples of those projects. The proposal should have given more explicit examples of accomplishments. For example some explicit information on the matrix would have been helpful. What gaps in habitat activities were identified through the matrix? What limiting factors have been identified and how are they being addressed? Although the idea is good, the proposal is not adequate.
It is not always apparent where the YRWIC has its own functions separate from those of the individual member agencies that participate. For example, does Objective 2 imply that the YRWIC is going to implement its own habitat projects or does it simply play a supportive role by endorsing those projects it considers best? Will the YRWIC develop its own planning strategy, and if so, how will this differ from those of the individual member agencies? Will the YRWIC develop its own scientific criteria for monitoring effectiveness (e.g., Objective 5)? What process is used by the Interagency Council to make decisions, and how are conflicts resolved between the Council and the priorities of its individual members?
The proposal is primarily administrative in its focus. It does not provide an indication of the criteria it will use to set project priorities (other than a vague reference to "limiting factors analysis"), what scientific criteria will be used to monitor effectiveness of the projects, or how the results and activities of the Council itself will be evaluated. The emphasis of the Watershed Information Center seems to be a bookkeeping function (e.g., where projects have and have not been completed) rather than the evaluation function implied by Objective 5.
The council has been working for several years, but no concrete results are offered to illustrate how the council is providing important benefits that should continue to be supported through this proposal. The objectives imply some scientific role for the YRWIC, but most of the discussion focuses on an administrative and political (e.g., project endorsement) role. This makes it difficult to interpret what the YRWIC intends to provide other than "coordination."
Although it appears to have agency support, it is not clear whether the YRWIC has decision making authority, or is a clearing house for information or is a forum for public participation. This is further confused by the authors noting that the Yakima River Watershed Council, which the YRWIC is linked with, has been disbanded. We are not told what replaced it, and whether that changes the role of the YRWIC. It also was not clear until the very end of the proposal why the Ki-Yak was submitting this proposal as opposed to some other group. Most of the objectives identified in the proposal seem justified, but the provisions for evaluating the success of the project seem poorly defined.
Comment:
Comment:
We believe this project will assist in directing salmon recovery and watershed projects in this area (from all funding sources) towards unified management objectives.Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
No performance standard outlined for coordination project or for the coordinator.Can the sponsor demonstrate that the proposed activities will improve fish habitat?
How exactly will the limiting factors analysis be done?
It is not clear how the Council will actually implement projects. It appears this is a coordination project.
The link between limiting factors analysis and ranking of proposals is unclear. How is the council involved in ranking proposals and why?
Objective 2 is unfocussed. What will be accomplished? Task "a" states that a science-based criteria for ranking proposals will be established, while Task "b" describes another evaluation system. This seems redundant.
How will the sponsors adapt themselves to changing needs within the basin as stated in Objective 5?
Comment:
Fund. Most of the ISRP questions were addressed. Long-term funding should be based on clear presentation of concrete results. For example, the proposal states that YRWIC has developed a limiting factor analysis. Some indication of what those factors are would have been helpful. Some examples of projects that were directed toward priorities in the basin will help establish the value of YRWIC's coordination.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]