FY 1999 proposal 199705200
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhancement Between Selah and Union Gaps |
| Proposal ID | 199705200 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Scott Nicolai |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Protect, restore, enhance, and reestablish access into productive habitats to optimize juvenile rearing success immediately upstream of Sunnyside Diversion Dam. |
| 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 |
|---|
| 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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?