FY 1999 proposal 199704900
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Teanaway River Instream Flow Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 199704900 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Paul Ward |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / ward@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Implement 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
| 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 |
|---|
|
N/A |
|
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 |
|---|
| 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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:
