FY 2000 proposal 20119

Additional documents

TitleType
20119 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRock Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project
Proposal ID20119
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation - Fisheries (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn Hatcher, Fisheries Manager
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / yinfish@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionConduct Watershed Analysis in Rock Creek drainage to determine conditions of the stream habitat, adjacent riparian stands, limiting factors to fish and wildlife production, and land management effect.
Target speciesMid-Columbia steelhead and resident rainbow trout
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

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Watershed team leader, book keeper $53,820
Fringe $13,616
Supplies Office and field supplies, computer, software, field equipment $14,320
Operating Vehicle rental, office space, utilities, insurance, conference room rental $13,850
Travel $750
Indirect $25,631
Subcontractor consultants, GIS services $118,330
$240,317
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$240,317
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$240,317
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: None anticipated. Some parts of the drainage may not receive full assessment or prescriptive measures if landowners are unwilling to participate. Unusual weather conditions may also hinder assessment of watershed conditions.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund. Review next year.
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund. Review next year.

Comments: Next year's proposal should address the following questions: What economies of scale could be achieved if these efforts were undertaken in a set of watersheds of this size? A description of the watershed that would give the reviewers an idea of its size should be supplied. Where is this work likely to lead? What is the biological priority of the watershed?


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

This project addresses the need for a compilation of existing data in the subbasin. We recommend funding Objective 2 only, until a comprehensive definition of "Watershed Assessment" has been developed by CBFWA, ISRP and NPPC. Once this has been defined, the objectives for these watershed assessments will need to be revisited. This project also addresses an area where comprehensive documents do not currently exist.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Costs appear to be high.

No mention of watershed size.

What information would lead the sponsor to believe this is a necessary project?


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]