FY 2000 proposal 199206200
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 |
|---|---|
| 199206200 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakama Nation - Riparian/Wetlands Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 199206200 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tracy Hames |
| 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 | Continue implementation of YIN Wetlands/Riparian Restoration Project by protecting and restoring riparian and wetland habitat along anadromous fish bearing rivers and streams in the agricultural area of the Yakama Indian Reservation (~2,500 acres/year). |
| Target species | All wildlife species affected by the hydro development of the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|
| 1991 | Completed initial project plan including Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) estimates for the project area. |
| 1992 | Obtained predesign funding for implementation plan. |
| 1993 | Developed implementation plan and identified 15 priority areas for inclusion into the project (total of 27,000 acres). |
| 1993 | Project progrommatic NEPA work completed, FONSI signed. |
| 1994 | Obj. 1: Secured Priority Area 1 (430 ac). |
| 1994 | Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored. |
| 1995 | Obj. 1: Secured Priority Area 2 (3,800 ac). |
| 1995 | Obj. 2: Restored wetlands on Priority Area 1. |
| 1995 | Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored. |
| 1996 | Obj. 1: Secured Priority Area 3 (660 ac). |
| 1996 | Obj. 2: Began restoration activities on Areas 2 and 3, began native grass restoration on Area 1. |
| 1996 | Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored. |
| 1997 | Obj. 1: Began land securing process for all or portions of Priority Areas 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 15. |
| 1997 | Obj.2: Finished restoration of Priority Areas 1 and 3, continued restoration of Priority Area 2. |
| 1997 | Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored. |
| 1998 | Obj. 1: Secured portions of Priority Areas 5, 10, 11, 12 and 15 (total of 3,415 acres). |
| 1998 | Obj. 2: Completed wetlands restoration on Priority Area 2. |
| 1998 | Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored. |
| 1999 | Obj. 1: Will complete land securing procedures on Priority Area 4 (~2,500 acres). |
| 1999 | Obj. 2: Restoration will begin on Priority Areas 5, 10, 11, 12 and 15. |
| 1999 | Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9705300 | Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment | |
| 9901300 | Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment | |
| 9803400 | Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin | |
| 9705100 | Yakima Basin Side Channels | |
| 9603501 | Satus Watershed Restoration | |
| 9206200 | Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration (this proposal) | |
| 20547 | Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella | |
| 9705000 | Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration | |
| 9803300 | Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed |
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 | 2 Professional FTEs, 6 Technician FTEs, 1 Office Support FTE | $275,000 |
| Fringe | 25% of Personnel | $68,750 |
| Supplies | Office supplies, computers, building lease, etc. | $6,000 |
| Operating | Fence repair, tools, etc. | $85,700 |
| Capital | Land purchase, farm equipment | $1,184,045 |
| NEPA | Completed | $0 |
| Construction | $5,000 | |
| Travel | $5,000 | |
| Indirect | 23.5% of budget, excluding capitol purchases and construction | $103,505 |
| Other | M&E, Insurance | $7,000 |
| Subcontractor | Ducks Unlimited, Engineering design, etc. | $10,000 |
| $1,750,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,750,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,750,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Americorps | Labor for Restoration Activities | $200,000 | unknown |
| Pheasants Forever | Native grass seed | $20,000 | unknown |
| National Resource Conservation Service | Wetlands restoration and commodity credit funds | $50,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: The level of funding achieved has been the only constraint on this project. Presently there is more land available for inclusion into the project than there are funds allocated on an annual basis.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on correcting noted deficiencies.Comments: In terms of budget, longevity, and potential benefits, this seems to be one of the more important projects in the subbasin. The proposal provides a useful description of the programmatic background and history of the project. But it is disappointing for its lack of technical detail, description of ecological objectives, and evaluation of the work completed to date. The proposal seems to define success primarily by the total number of acres that have been acquired and/or treated (e.g., doing what the plan said it would do) rather than by the effectiveness of the treatments (e.g., have restoration efforts met their ecological objectives?). It is impossible to evaluate effectiveness to date on the basis of the information provided. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the monitoring program itself will be sufficient to supply this information.
The proposal needs to define measurable habitat objectives. A technical description of the HEP approach, its strengths and weaknesses, should be provided to justify why this is the appropriate measure of habitat values and whether this provides a sufficient scientific basis for monitoring ecological success. It is not clear from the proposal what cover types the program (and this proposal) is intended to restore, how quantitative objectives for each cover type were determined, and how successful re-establishment of these types will be evaluated.
The proposal emphasizes wildlife values, particularly waterfowl. It is unclear whether values established for waterfowl will support or undermine values for anadromous fish. The proposal suggests that this project has integrated wildlife restoration activities with those for anadromous fish (p. 4581), but does not show how this has been accomplished. There is no mention of monitoring associated with fishery values. The monitoring design cannot be evaluated from the information provided. The methods used in the past or proposed for future restoration activities are not discussed in detail. Alternative methods, including passive versus active techniques, are not evaluated.
The proposal has a specific objective for adaptive management. Yet, despite acquisitions going back to 1993 and continued restoration activity since 1995, the proposal provides no data to demonstrate that efforts to date have been successful or whether changes in the 8-year-old project plan are warranted. The budget includes more than $1 million for capitol expenses. A better description of the items that will be purchased is needed. Purchase of "equipment such as tractors, seed drills, etc." only gives a vague impression of how the money will be spent. How much for property? How many tractors and seed drills?
Comment:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Provide details on past accomplishments and how well they have met the biological objectives. How will success be measured? Project started in 1992 but there are few details about how it has benefited fish and wildlife.Identify when the land will be purchased (this fiscal year?). The sponsor requests $1.2 million for land acquisition but does not provide an indication of where the land will be purchased.
Explain how HEP will be used. How will the success of specific activities be defined. What measure of increase/decrease will be used?
Provide more detail in Section 10. Information/technology transfer. It is difficult to know how well the project is faring.
Why is Objective 1.Task a. listed if it was completed in 1994?
This is a high budget but it includes few details on key personnel and their past activities and successes.
Clearly identify the target population.
Provide more details on information transfer. What talks have been given and where? What information has been shared and how? This is an expensive project but the proponents present little evidence of how the project is faring.
Comment:
Comment:
Proponent reductionComment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,514,545 | $1,514,545 | $1,514,545 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website