FY 1999 proposal 199705300

Additional documents

TitleType
199705300 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleToppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration
Proposal ID199705300
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 / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionRestore instream flows to Toppenish and Simcoe Creeks by purchase, substitution, and/or lease of water and lands; Modify irrigation diversions to mimic natural runoff regimes which will aid recharge of alluvial aquifers and augment late-summer streamflow.
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 .5 FTE Fish Bio, .25 FTE Wild Bio, .25 FTE GeoHyd, .25 FTE GIS, 1 FTE Tech II, .5 FTE Admin Support $84,869
Fringe 25.3% $21,472
Supplies Office, Field Supplies $5,000
Operating Training, vehicle insurance, Utilities, repairs, building depreciation, rental vehicle, land rental $67,980
Capital Land purchase (160 acres at $700/acre) $112,000
Travel travel per diem $1,000
Indirect 23.5% $53,081
Subcontractor $154,600
$500,002
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$500,002
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$500,002
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: Inability to secure leases or buy lands due to uncooperative or unwilling landowners.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Comments:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes:

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: Clarify Objective 4. 70% of project is "Maintain and Monitor Leases." Nothing in Methods about this. Surface-groundwater interchange monitoring should be described. Why is only 20% of project for land purchase?

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete: Clarify cost of Objective 4 - 350k, Please add a note on why .5 FTE Admin. Support is needed and those services not provided through Indirect.


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 proposal is conceptually sound and is a good idea. The budget should be scrutinized to see if there is duplication between operation and maintenance and indirect costs.