FY 1999 proposal 199704900

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleTeanaway River Instream Flow Restoration
Proposal ID199704900
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YIN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NamePaul Ward
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / ward@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionImplement delivery system and on-farm water conservation projects, such as piping head ditches or convertion to sprinkler irrigation, and transfer saved water to instream flows in the Teanaway River.
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
N/A

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
Subcontractor Bureau of Reclamation $775,000
$775,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$775,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$775,000
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: Project is predicated on the foundation that acceptable conservation plans can be developed with interested landowners. Preliminary discussions have already occurred with interested landowners as part of on-going project.


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*<p>
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Management Issue: Good idea. Needs to be accomplished under a proposed Land and Water Rights Acquisition Fund recommended under Project 8067 (9109 in FY99).

Technical Issue: Clearly define the objectives, demonstrate what the project will accomplish, show how the 3 cfs will be achieved, and what the relative benefits of 3cfs in the Teanaway River is critical to fish and wildlife.

Technical Issue: Same as original FY98 proposal – need to provide the additional information that was provided in FY98, plus an explanation of new work in FY99 resulting from FY98 funding. Describe whether this is a request for new funding for FY99 or was FY98 the last year of funding?

Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Slight reduction from increased efficiencies
Recommendation:
Inadequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The revised proposal does a much better job of describing the problem. However, it needs to provide more details on methods, personnel, past results, and objectives. It lists tasks that in other places in the proposal they state are already done.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment: