FY 2000 proposal 20119
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Rock Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project |
| Proposal ID | 20119 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation - Fisheries (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries 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 Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Conduct Watershed Analysis in Rock Creek drainage to determine conditions of the stream habitat, adjacent riparian stands, limiting factors to fish and wildlife production, and land management effect. |
| Target species | Mid-Columbia steelhead and resident rainbow trout |
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 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 |
Watershed team leader, book keeper |
$53,820 |
| Fringe |
|
$13,616 |
| Supplies |
Office and field supplies, computer, software, field equipment |
$14,320 |
| Operating |
Vehicle rental, office space, utilities, insurance, conference room rental |
$13,850 |
| Travel |
|
$750 |
| Indirect |
|
$25,631 |
| Subcontractor |
consultants, GIS services |
$118,330 |
| $240,317 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $240,317 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $240,317 |
| 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: None anticipated. Some parts of the drainage may not receive full assessment or prescriptive measures if landowners are unwilling to participate. Unusual weather conditions may also hinder assessment of watershed conditions.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund. Review next year.
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund. Review next year.
Comments:
Next year's proposal should address the following questions: What economies of scale could be achieved if these efforts were undertaken in a set of watersheds of this size? A description of the watershed that would give the reviewers an idea of its size should be supplied. Where is this work likely to lead? What is the biological priority of the watershed?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This project addresses the need for a compilation of existing data in the subbasin. We recommend funding Objective 2 only, 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 also addresses an area where comprehensive documents do not currently exist.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Costs appear to be high. No mention of watershed size.
What information would lead the sponsor to believe this is a necessary project?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]