Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Methow Basin Side Channel Habitat Construction |
| Proposal ID | 9097 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / lynn@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Mid-Columbia / Methow |
| Short description | Create 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
| 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.