Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Little Naches River Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 9158 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation Fisheries Program (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 | Improve and restore degraded habitat and riparian conditions in the Little Naches River through the placement of large woody debris and rock to enhance pool formation and retain spawning gravels… |
| 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 |
|
$15,826 |
| Fringe |
|
$4,004 |
| Supplies |
|
$9,170 |
| Indirect |
|
$7,714 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$53,756 |
| $90,470 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $90,470 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $90,470 |
| 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: Dependent upon weather and flow conditions, monitoring and in-channel work may be delayed. Late spring rains or runoff could hinder efforts to collect information on habitat conditions or construct in-stream structures. All construction work within the ordinary high water mark will need to be completed prior to spring chinook spawning (late August) or conducted the following year. Any identified cultural or archaeological sites will be avoided, which may change the location of some work.
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: Explain if this is an ongoing project, not submitted in FY98 watershed process.Technical Issue: Explain what work has already been done? Explain how planning, and implementation will both occur in FY99.
Technical Issue: Need to sequence the actions into steps by year – clearly describe exactly what will be done each year and how much money each action will require.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The proposal text leaves the impression that this is a continuing project so it needs to describe why more review is necessary after so much preliminary work has already been done. The proposal did not clearly describe how it arrived at the limiting factors nor whether the land management activities that led to these problems have been corrected. It is good that the major land managers are participating and that the entire system has been evaluated. Specific prescriptions from the watershed analysis need to be presented, specifically in regards to the use of instream structures. The description of monitoring is insufficient.