Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment |
| Proposal ID | 9102 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Conduct watershed assessment in the agricultural portion of the Ahtanum Creek watershed, to complete assessment of entire watershed and facilitate restoration of salmon and steelhead. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
fish bio (lead) 0.5 FTE, wildl. bio 0.5, hydrol. 0.25, GIS bio 1.0, field tech 2.0, ofc 0.5 |
$145,938 |
| Fringe |
25.3% |
$36,922 |
| Supplies |
office and field supplies, GIS computer and and field laptop plus software, survey equipment |
$21,000 |
| Operating |
vehicles, office space, maintenance, utilities, insurance |
$23,950 |
| Travel |
(and training) |
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
23.5% calculated on all items on this budget |
$55,180 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$5,000 |
| $289,990 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $289,990 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $289,990 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Field data gathering may be constrained by weather or by private property access problems off the Yakama Reservation. The project will be able to rely partly on data already acquired as part of the current Yakima subbasin adjudication process.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Clearly describe the methodology that will be used for the assessment (e.g., federal six-step guide and the Washington State Watershed Assessment manual versus a walk-through).Explain how the cost for conducting the assessment ($290K) for a 171 square mile watershed is not excessive; and whether less costly alternatives to perform the assessment were considered.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Fund only the assessment for now
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is the sort of planning and assessment project that should be completed before proposing restoration projects. The watershed analysis should be completed first before funding for additional work is funded. It describes a heavy reliance on instream flow incremental method (IFIM), but this method has not been proven effective in all ecosystems. If they use this method, they must calibrate it locally.