FY 2000 proposal 20118
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 |
|---|---|
| 20118 Narrative | Narrative |
| Columbia Gorge: Klickitat Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Gorge: Klickitat Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Klickitat River Subbasin Assessment |
| Proposal ID | 20118 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Manager |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Klickitat |
| Short description | Compile and evaluate existing fisheries and watershed information and perform field verification to prioritize protection, restoration and analysis needs throughout the Klickitat River subbasin, based on potential benefit to the fisheries resources. |
| Target species | Klickitat River spring and fall chinook, coho, winter steelhead, summer steelhead, resident rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.02 | -121.16 | Klickitat River |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 20510 | Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Umbrella | Dependence of supplementation on habitat carrying capacity |
| 9705600 | Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project | Assessment can guide future enhancement efforts in the lower Klickitat subbasin |
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 | Project Manager, 640 hours, Bookkeeper, 80 hours | $15,311 |
| Fringe | @ 25.3% | $3,874 |
| Supplies | Miscellaneous supplies | $2,000 |
| Operating | vehicles, fuel, repairs, insurance | $8,900 |
| Indirect | @ 23.5% | $7,070 |
| Subcontractor | $197,904 | |
| $235,059 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $235,059 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $235,059 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Weather conditions will affect the timing of field studies; the initiation of the assessment is timed accordingly.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fund for one year as proposed
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year as proposed. Subsequent funding contingent on correction of deficiencies identified by ISRP. In addition to the problems discussed in the comments, there is a need to describe the relation to 20117 and 9705600 especially the assessment activities described in 9705600.Comments: In general, the intent and reasoning behind this proposal are good. Unfortunately, the explanation of the programmatic need was poorly developed or documented, because it did not address the kinds of criteria by which information dissemination and database proposals were to be evaluated. The proposal had a good description of the watershed but a very weak description of the fishery problems in the watershed. This might have been provided by the umbrella proposal, but the umbrella proposal was equally weak. This proposal was submitted as an information dissemination proposal, but it did not address the criteria developed for this kind of proposal. These include quality control for the information, assessment of public demand for information, expected changes in public behavior, and methods for assessing impacts. Watershed assessment is clearly needed and should have preceded the habitat/supplementation effort. The watershed assessment should be complete before restoration activities proposed in 9705600 are implemented. However, they do not describe the relation to 9705600. 9705600 also lists completion of a watershed assessment. Is there a difference between the watershed assessment described here compared to that in 9705600?
The proposal provides some useful background information but not a sufficient description of the technical methods to be used. The proposal should review similar assessments tried elsewhere as a justification for the approach that will be taken here. The Proper Functioning Condition methodology, which relies on expert opinion, needs to be discussed and evaluated relative to alternative stream/riparian assessment techniques that are available. Considerable work has been done on evaluating stream and riparian habitat conditions throughout the Pacific Northwest. There is not scientific consensus about the PFC approach.
The budget for the subcontract needs to be spelled out. It is the bulk of the project, yet the elements of the subcontract are not itemized. Most of the personnel assigned to this work would be hired under the subcontract. It is not possible to evaluate qualifications because the individuals have not been chosen. Would two different teams or a single team be used for the work proposed under the Klickitat and Yakima subbasin assessments?
Comment:
Comment:
This project addresses the need for a compilation of existing data in the subbasin. The analytic methods and use of the information are not clearly defined in this proposal. We recommend not funding Objectives 2 and 3 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 does address an area where comprehensive documents do not currently exist.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
How is this assessment integrated with the assessment proposed in 9705600?Since there is so much information on the fisheries and water resources of this basin, why is this assessment needed? What is wrong with existing information?
Need more specific information on how the proponents will assess fisheries potential. How will they determine whether a reach has "high existing or potential fisheries value?"
What criteria will the fish biologist use to assess fisheries potential? Why is the Ecosystem Diagnostics and Treatment model appropriate for determining limiting factors?
Need more budget information, exactly how many hours will be allocated to each consultant?
Why is information transfer beyond the scope of this project? Disseminating this information is extremely important.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]