FY 2000 proposal 199603501
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 |
---|---|
199603501 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Satus Watershed Restoration |
Proposal ID | 199603501 |
Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Mangager |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
Phone / email | 5098656262 / yinfish@yakama.com |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
Short description | Enhance and protect summer steelhead spawning and rearing habitat by restoring the ecological function of the Satus Creek watershed. |
Target species | Yakima River summer 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 |
---|---|
1997 | Dike removal |
1998 | Road obliteration |
1997 | Boulder placement |
1996 | Grazing (rest/management) |
1996 | Fire rehabilitation |
1996 | Revegetation |
1996 | Meadow restoration |
1997 | Large woody debris placement |
1997 | Aspen regeneration |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Umbrella | dependence of supplementation on habitat carrying capacity | |
9901300 | Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment | |
20547 | Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella | |
Yakima Subbasin Assessment (new) | ||
9803400 | Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin | |
9705000 | Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration | |
9705100 | Yakima Basin Side Channels | |
9705300 | Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment | |
9803300 | Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed | |
926200 | Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project |
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 | Includes a total of 2.4 fte professional staff, 3.5 fte technicians, and .25 fte bookkeeper | $202,160 |
Fringe | 25.3% | $51,146 |
Supplies | Includes: seed, erosion control supplies, fence materials, miscellaneous field supplies. | $41,900 |
Operating | Includes: Building rental, utilities, vehicles + maintenance, heavy equipment rental, insurance,etc. | $93,795 |
Travel | Travel for various symposia, workshops, etc. | $7,000 |
Indirect | 23.5% | $93,695 |
Subcontractor | Cattele impoundment | $12,700 |
$502,396 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $502,396 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $502,396 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
Washington State Department of Transportation | Collaboration on U.S. HWY 97 segement relocation and maintenance mitigation | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Unfavorable climatic conditions are the foremost constraints on accomplishing objectives. At present, we are uncertain what affect the Endangered Species Act will have on project activities.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on correcting the noted deficiencies.Comments: This was a well written and convincing proposal. The program appears to have many strengths, including broad scale interagency support, participation, and active monitoring and assessment. It also has several significant weaknesses. The proposal could have been improved by providing more scientific citations and documentation. The programmatic needs and goals could have been supported by citations supporting the decline in populations abundance, changes in the watershed, or the watershed assessment. The methods section contained good general descriptions, but could have been supported by scientific references to show that these were based on the best available scientific techniques.
Comment:
Comment:
Project budget appears high in personnel costs. Due to the nature of the demonstration project and continued support, we would like to follow through with our commitment to complete the restoration project. We expect to see allocation of technical staff time reduced in future years. There should be funding available through CREP for riparian restoration.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
No evidence that past activities have met any biological objectives.Monitoring and assessment plans do not provide enough detail. How will the sponsor assess surface/groundwater connections?
Tasks presented in the Methods section are redundant.
What land will be purchased and why?
What will happen to the money allocated for capital acquisitions if no land is purchased?
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$388,600 | $388,600 | $388,600 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website