FY 1999 proposal 199705200

Additional documents

TitleType
199705200 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEnhancement Between Selah and Union Gaps
Proposal ID199705200
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YIN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameScott Nicolai
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / snicolai@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionProtect, restore, enhance, and reestablish access into productive habitats to optimize juvenile rearing success immediately upstream of Sunnyside Diversion Dam.
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
Capital $384,000
Indirect $90,240
Subcontractor $0
$474,240
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$474,240
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$474,240
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: Broken out by each objective, the potential time constraints are as follows: Objective #1: Protect at-risk rearing habitats and floodplain areas through conservation easement purchase and property acquisition. Time constraints include land availability, potential limitations of conservation easement recipients, weather limitations on land appraisals, contractor scheduling (for fence construction). Note: much of this objective has now been completed. Objective #2: Restore connectivity to off-channel rearing habitats and floodplains. Time constraints include construction season limitations, contractor schedules permitting delays, permit limitations, and coordinating with private landowners. Objective #3: Restore habitat function in off-channel habitats. Time constraints include construction season limitations, contractor schedules permitting delays, permit limitations, and coordinating with private landowners. Objective #4: Monitor and report results of project activities. Time constraints include weather limitations. Major milestones include: 1. Inventory subbasin within key reaches to prioritize protection, restoration and reconnection projects. Note: This has been completed. 2. Establish contact with private landowners and affected companies. Note: This has been completed. 3. Develop MOU’s with interested parties. Note: this is in process. 4. Implement habitat protection/restoration/reconnection efforts. Note: several plans are now in place, though much additional work is needed.


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: Provide specifics about the easement – if the purpose is to purchase two parcels (40-acre and 192-acre).

Technical Issue: If the benefits to fish and wildlife are clearly described, then the project is technically sound.


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

Comment:

Budget constraints. Proposal was found to be technically sound and appropriate but was deferred because other work was judged more urgent and funds were not adequate for all needed work.
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The monitoring and technical background need to be better described. The proposal should state if the stream reaches flowing through the land proposed for acquisition are important for migration, rearing or both. The budget should be scrutinized. If the entire budget is for acquisition of land and easements and no labor costs are included why are there indirect costs?