FY 2001 Ongoing proposal 200001100

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRock Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Project
Proposal ID200001100
OrganizationYakama Nation Fisheries Management Program (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn, Hatcher, Yakama Nation Fisheries
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this projectLynn Hatcher
Review cycleFY 2001 Ongoing
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Rock Creek
Short descriptionDevelop comprehensive plans and designs for habitat restoration work utilizing information from the watershed assessment information and other relevant monitoring data.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2000 Rock Creek Watershed Assessment (scheduled for completion)

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Plan and design effective habitat restoration work for the Rock Creek drainage a. Gather, review and evaluate all relevant information on Rock Creek to determine habitat deficiencies, water quality impairments, limiting factors and causal effects. $12,514
b. Prioritize potential restoration work based on ability to improve conditions, expected benefits, feasibility and costs. $3,540
c. Contact landowners and seek to obtain cooperation for restoration work. $1,770
d. Develop and design restoration projects that will be biologically and cost effective. $20,420
e. Conduct cultural resource surveys for restoration sites. $6,000
f. Complete and submit necessary environmental permits for project work. NEPA compliance will be coordinated with BPA. $8,500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003FY 2002
$21,000$37,500

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2005FY 2003FY 2004FY 2002
$74,000$264,000$137,000$227,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2005FY 2003FY 2004
$12,000$8,500$12,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2005FY 2003FY 2004FY 2002
$6,000$11,000$6,000$9,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel FTE: 0.5 FTE for Watershed Restoration Biologist & 0.1 FTE for Bookkeeper 4 $26,200
Fringe Fringe at 25.3% rate $6,629
Supplies Office and field supplies (maps, paper, aerial photos, camera, film, copying costs, etc.) $2,350
Travel GSA vehicle for 6 months $2,670
Indirect Indirect Rate at 23.5% $8,895
NEPA Cultural Resource Surveys (80-120 hrs.) $6,000
$52,744
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$52,744
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$52,744
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$289,000
% change from forecast-81.7%
Reason for change in estimated budget

Initially, the project sponsor expected to proceed immediately with restoration work in FY 2001. After additional evaluation, the project was determined to be more effective by using time in FY 2001 to thoroughly plan and design the work. This should result in better planning efforts and more effective implementation of restoration work.

Reason for change in scope

The scope of work has not changed, just an extension of the time frame to complete the project. Additional time for planning and designing restoration work should facilitate improved efficiency and better results from the work.

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: no
Date:
Jul 14, 2000

Comment:

Initially, the project sponsor expected to proceed immediately with restoration work in FY 2001. After additional evaluation, the project was determined to be more effective by using time in FY 2001 to thoroughly plan and design the work. This should result in better planning efforts and more effective implementation of restoration work.

The scope of work has not changed, just an extension of the time frame to complete the project. Additional time for planning and designing restoration work should facilitate improved efficiency and better results from the project.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000

Comment:

Rationale: Previous commitments remain available for scope of work; Project has not contracted for $156,000 budgeted in 2000.