FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 23035

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 / [email protected]
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)

Recommendation:
Not fundable under this solicitation

Date:
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.