FY 1999 proposal 199705300
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 199705300 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher |
| 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 | Restore 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
| 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 |
|---|
| 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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:
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.