Return to Proposal Finder FY 1999 Proposal 199603501

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Satus Watershed Restoration
BPA Project Proposal Number 199603501
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Yakama Indian Nation
Business acronym (if appropriate) YIN
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Manager
Mailing Address P.O. Box 151
City, State, Zip Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone 5098656262
Fax 5098656293
E-mail lynn@yakama.com
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 1999
Province Lower Mid-Columbia
Subbasin Yakima
 
Short Description Reestablish landscape level ecological processes disrupted by modern land uses. We are restoring normative interactions between soil, water, and vegetation necessary for creation and maintenance of the aquatic habitat essential to anadromous fishes.
Target Species


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.6A-D, 7.8A, B, E
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
926200 Lower Valley Wetlands and Riparian Area Restoration Project Lower-watershed complement to this project. No


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Restore normative flow regime a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function.
. b. Patrol and maintain range fences in the Satus Creek watershed, coupled with trespass penalties.
. c. Characterize and quantify streamflow
. e. Climatological monitoring.
. j. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
. l. Enhance beaver habitat.
. n. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels.
. o. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process.
2. Reduce erosion. a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function.
. b. Patrol and maintain range fences.
. j. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
. k. Placement of large woody debris.
. l. Enhance beaver habitat
. n. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels.
. o. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process.
3. Restore natural riparian and upland vegetation. a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function,
. b. Patrol and maintain range fences.
. l. Beaver habitat enhancement.
. m. Plant ponderosa pine seedlings.
. n. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels.
. o. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process.
4. Develop and assess large-scale, low input restoration treatments. a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function.
. c. Characterize and quantify streamflow.
. d. Characterize suspended sediment transport.
. e. Climatological monitoring.
. f. Aerial photograph interpretation.
. g. Channel survey.
. i. Fisheries surveys.
. j. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
. l. Beaver habitat enhancement.
. o. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process.
5. Improve aquatic habitat a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function.
. b. Patrol and maintain range fences.
. d. Characterize suspended sediment transport.
. h. Characterize stream habitat conditions.
. j. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
. k. Large woody debris placement.
. l. Beaver habitat enhancement.
. m. Plant ponderosa pine seedlings.
. n. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels.
. o. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 07/01/96 12/01/02 30.0%
2 07/01/96 12/01/02 25.0%
3 07/01/96 12/01/02 25.0%
4 07/01/96 12/01/02 10.0%
5 07/01/96 12/01/02 10.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 1999 Cost
Personnel Includes 4 professional staff (3 FTE’s), 10 technicians (8.75 FTE’s), 1 Bookkeeper (.25 FTE) $273,946
Fringe 25.3% $ 69,308
Supplies office supplies, seed, herbicide, prescribed burning, erosion control, tools, etc. $ 29,410
Operating portable office rent, utilities, vehicles, fuel, repairs, insurance $ 65,381
Travel symposia, profesional presentations $ 4,000
Indirect 23.5% $112,247
Subcontractor $ 11,000
Other $ 24,600
Total Itemized Budget $589,892


Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 project cost $589,892
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 1999 budget request $589,892
FY 1999 forecast from 1998 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2000 2001 2002 2003
All Phases $539,423 $449,520 $476,491 $505,079
Total Outyear Budgets $539,423 $449,520 $476,491 $505,079
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Weather is the major constraint on operations. Winter conditions can inhibit access over primitive roads or in stream channels. The length of the season for propagating vegetation is limited by duration of soil moisture.


Section 6. References

n/a or no information


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract

Satus Creek, contained entirely within the Yakama Indian Reservation, is the most productive steelhead stream in Yakima subbasin, in recent years accounting for more than 1/3 of returning adults. The Satus watershed, comprising approximately 10% of the Yakima subbasin, is largely undeveloped and has no irrigation diversions. This setting offers a unique opportunity to proceed with the landscape-scale restoration and monitoring undertaken by the Yakama Nation Satus Watershed Project. Several major complementary projects, funded by six state and federal agencies, are also underway in the Satus watershed. The Satus Watershed Project was conceived as a long-term, large-scale watershed restoration and monitoring effort designed to develop, apply, and evaluate cost-effective methods for restoring fish habitat degraded by impaired watershed functioning. This approach was accepted by the BPA, and the project was initiated in June 1996. We are increasing the productivity of anadromous fish habitat by restoring ecological function of the Satus Creek watershed (Brooks et al. 1991; FWP 1995). Restoration activities will also favor riparian dependent wildlife species and reestablishment of coho and spring chinook Coordinated projects are addressing stream channel stability and complexity, riparian structure, diversity and productivity, and upland source areas This proposal outlines specific restoration and monitoring tasks which will effect improvements in ecological function. Project staff work closely with BIA and Tribal programs to assure that management activities in the watershed will be complementary. An extensive monitoring system is in place, quantifying the value of coordinated watershed-scale restoration.


Reviews and Recommendations

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

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Technical Issue: Clearly describe how the objectives in FY99 differ from FY98.

Technical Issue: Explain how the staffing level is not excessive to achieve the objectives.

Technical Issue: Too similar to the original FY98 proposal – need to provide the additional information that was provided in FY98, plus an explanation of new work in FY99 resulting from FY98 funding.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
1999 2000 2001
$500,000 $539,423 $449,520
Comment:
Slight reduction from increased efficiencies

ISRP Review , ISRP 1998-1 Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
This is a well-written proposal--good balance of concepts and details. The proposal describes a well-planned project, with significant progress already. The watershed-scale conceptual foundation is excellent. It is well integrated with other projects. Minor criticisms include a failure to give details on the personnel. The technical background could be described better.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$388,600
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$388,600
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$388,600
Sponsor (Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Indian Nation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page