FY 1999 proposal 9097

Additional documents

TitleType
9097 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMethow Basin Side Channel Habitat Construction
Proposal ID9097
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YIN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn Hatcher
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / lynn@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Mid-Columbia / Methow
Short descriptionCreate side channel habitats for spring chinook salmon in the Methow Basin by excavating new channels and re-connecting existing channels to the mainstem Methow River and its larger tributaries.
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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $70,500
Fringe $14,500
Supplies included in construction amt. $0
Capital included in construction amt. $0
Indirect $100,000
Subcontractor Unidentified $340,000
$525,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$525,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$525,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: To secure various permits, environmental review processess, MOU's to began field activities in the summer/fall of 1999. Given the environmental review process it may only be feasible to complete objectives 2 and 3 in 1999, and objective 1 in 2000.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Need more detail on the existing resource condition and critical limiting factors, measurable objectives, strategic actions and expected results, and the monitoring methods for determining if the expected results are being achieved and the process for modifying the project based on the monitoring results. Need to relate rearing habitat to spawning habitat.

Technical Issue: Need to provide detailed information regarding how specific locations and projects are identified. Need to describe how the cost estimate was derived without a specific design.

Management Issue: Identify why the indirect costs are higher than personnel costs.


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Pending
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal needs much more detail; where will side channels be located and how will they remain unaffected by irrigation withdrawals. The conceptual foundation to reconstruct flood plains is good. The expected production of smolts may be optimistic. The budget should be scrutinized; specifically, indirect costs look high.