FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 23035
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 |
---|---|
23035 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Buckskin Slough Restoration |
Proposal ID | 23035 |
Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Bill Weiler |
Mailing address | 1701 S. 24th. Ave. Yakima, WA 98902 |
Phone / email | 5094579310 / weilewjw@dfw.wa.gov |
Manager authorizing this project | Ted Clausing |
Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
Short description | Buckskin Slough is a small, yet highly productive tributary to the Naches River in Yakima County. The proposal aims to complete restoration projects identified in a Phase 1 survey. |
Target species | chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
46.6293 | -120.577 | Buckskin Slough |
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 |
---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Restore salmon rearing and spawning habitat | Canary grass control | 3 days/.10month | $1,700 | Yes |
Rock weir placement | 1day/1/30month | $500 | Yes | |
Large woody debris placement | 4 days/.15month | $2,500 | Yes | |
Native vegetation planting | 13 days/.5month | $8,500 | Yes |
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2002 |
---|
$500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
---|---|---|---|
$500 | $500 | $500 | $500 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 1 Americorps team at $500/day for 13 days | $6,500 |
Supplies | native plants, mower rental, sprayer | $3,700 |
PIT tags | # of tags: Rootwad and rock weir placement | $3,000 |
$13,200 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $13,200 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $13,200 |
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
RFEG | goods and services | $37,155 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2001-7)
ISRP Review (ISRP 2001-7)
Recommendation:
Not fundable under this solicitation
Not fundable under this solicitation
Date:
Jun 21, 2001
Jun 21, 2001
Comment:
Not fundable under this solicitation. This proposal is not a good fit with 2001 Action Plan Criteria -- no clear immediate on the ground benefits. The project offers long term habitat improvement. It does not appear to be urgent except for the possibility of losing public support. Monitoring is to be done in another project. The sponsors do not make a strong case that this project addresses imminent risk to ESA-listed species and it does not have an adequate description of immediate benefits. The project is low cost.