Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess Resident Fish Within Toppenish Creek and Satus Creek |
| Proposal ID | 9110 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | George Lee |
| 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 | |
| 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 |
|---|
| 9603501 |
Satus Watershed Restoration |
|
|
Upper Toppenish Creek project (if approved) |
|
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 |
Bio .5 @$16151.00; FT fish tech @ $19656.00; 10% bkkr @$2525.00 |
$38,332 |
| Fringe |
@25.3% |
$9,698 |
| Supplies |
office; field gear, |
$1,500 |
| Operating |
vehicle rental |
$5,000 |
| Capital |
Electro-shocker |
$3,500 |
| Travel |
|
$300 |
| Indirect |
@23.5% |
$12,885 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $71,215 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $71,215 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $71,215 |
| 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: Toppenish Creek and Satus Creek are tributaries of the Yakima River and flow through the Yakama Indian Reservation. It is assumed that for this reason there should not be any constraints other than natural causes, such as the weather, spring freshets.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: A 1980 study surveyed resident fish in two tributaries of the Yakima River. Steelhead return to the Satus basin where there is an ongoing watershed project. Questions/Answers:
Will you look at non-salmonids? Answer: Yes, we will look at all species including bull trout. Historically there were no bull trout here.
Can you give a brief summary of the anadromous fish work in these two creeks? Answer: 80% of the steelhead in the Yakima River go into the Satus watershed. The Toppenish drainage has a lot of irrigation, unscreened diversions and a wildlife refuge.
Who operates the hydro project? Answer: It is a BOR irrigation project.
There is some frustration that anadromous fish projects have ignored resident fish. Why should we fund resident fish work here as opposed to other drainages? Answer: Satus Creek is a major steelhead stream.
Screening Criteria: No. The project does not address a specific resident fish measure.
Technical Criteria: No. The objectives and tasks are not clearly developed. There is nothing in the methods section.
Programmatic Criteria: Yes. The work may be valuable, but it should be assimilated into other work in the area from a watershed perspective. This is primarily an anadromous fish area.
General Comment: The project does not appear to coordinate with other ongoing or past work.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is incomplete. The narrative does not contain enough information for the project to be reviewed on its technical merits.