Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Little Naches River Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement |
| Proposal ID | 199705000 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation Fisheries Management Program (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Paul Ward |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151, Fort Road Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lynn Hatcher |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Ongoing |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Enhance and restore degraded riparian and habitat conditions in the Little Naches River by revegetating eroding banks and unstable channels, restricting vehicular traffic in the floodplain, and enhancing habitat by placement of trees and boulders. |
| 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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1998 |
Acquisition of Watershed Analyses and other monitoring data from USFS and Plum Creek Timber Company. |
| 1998 |
Supplemental monitoring of habitat conditions by the Yakama Nation for large woody debris, pool frequency, canopy cover, stream channel width and depth. |
| 1998 |
Plans and designs completed for restoration work. Environmental permits submitted to various agencies. |
| 1998 |
In-kind monitoring by the Yakama Nation, USFS and Plum Creek Timber Company on spawning gravel conditions. |
| 1999 |
Environmental permits acquired for restoration work. |
| 1999 |
In-kind monitoring by the Yakama Nation, USFS and Plum Creek Timber Company on spawning gravel conditions. |
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Review existing data and Watershed Analyses for restoration section 2 (river mile 2-5) to determine habitat and riparian deficiencies. |
a. Review existing information and data pertaining to this second section of the Little Naches. |
1 |
$13,531 |
|
| 2. Develop habitat and restoration plans. |
a. Develop habitat and restoration plans. |
1 |
$0 |
|
|
b. Submit and attain environmental permits for project work. |
1 |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $13,531 | $13,531 | $13,531 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Enhance vegetative conditions in riparian areas and the floodplain for shade, bank and channel stability, wood recruitment and fine sediment filtration. |
a. Revegetate impacted riparian sites and floodplain with native woody and herbaceous plants. |
1 |
$15,980 |
|
|
b. Construct vehicular barriers where activities can damage stream banks, existing riparian vegetation, revegetation work, and/or floodplain function. |
1 |
$8,880 |
|
| 2. Enhance in-channel habitat conditions by strategic placement of trees and boulders. |
a. Place trees and boulders in the stream channel to improve habitat conditions for juvenile rearing, velocity refuge, adult holding and spawning. |
1 |
$82,026 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $106,900 | $94,220 | $106,900 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2005 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $6,550 | $6,550 | $6,550 | $4,700 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Conduct supplemental monitoring to identify specific habitat and riparian deficiencies. Also to determine project benefits pre- and post-treatment. |
a. Conduct supplemental habitat and riparian monitoring. |
1 |
$14,533 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2002 |
|---|
| $14,533 | $14,533 | $14,533 | $14,533 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 0.1 FTE for Watershed Restoration Biologist & 0.1 FTE for Bookkeeper 4 |
$7,754 |
| Fringe |
Fringe at 25.3% rate |
$1,962 |
| Supplies |
Office supplies (maps, paper, aerial photos, copying costs, etc.) |
$800 |
| Travel |
GSA Vehicle for 1 month |
$440 |
| Indirect |
Indirect Rate at 23.5% |
$2,575 |
| Personnel |
FTE: 0.3 FTE for Watershed Restoration Biologist & 0.6 FTE for 2 Fisheries Restoration Technicians |
$26,400 |
| Fringe |
Fringe at 25.3% rate |
$6,680 |
| Supplies |
Supplies and materials (hip boots, rooted plants, plant cuttings, pruners, buckets, etc.) |
$3,440 |
| Travel |
GSA Vehicle for 4 months |
$1,760 |
| Indirect |
Indirect Rate at 23.5% |
$8,996 |
| Subcontractor |
Placement of trees, boulders, and vehicular barriers (includes equipment and materials). |
$53,320 |
| Subcontractor |
Excavator and "stinger" to install cuttings and rooted stock along the stream channel. |
$6,290 |
| Personnel |
FTE: 0.1 FTE for Watershed Restoration Biologist & 0.2 FTE for 2 Fisheries Restoration Technicians |
$8,034 |
| Fringe |
Fringe Rate at 25.3% |
$2,033 |
| Supplies |
Supplies and equipment (tape, range finder, densiometer, clipboard, notebooks, stadia rod, etc.) |
$1,260 |
| Travel |
GSA Vehicle for 1 month |
$440 |
| Indirect |
Indirect Rate at 23.5% |
$2,766 |
| $134,950 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $134,950 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $134,950 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $90,470 |
| % change from forecast | 49.2% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Projected costs for FY2001 budget have increased primarily due to two factors. First, staffing time has been increased in the budget to more accurately reflect the work load on this project. Additional staff time has been put toward this project than previously anticipated. The additional time had been provided by other Yakama Nation funding. Secondly, additional funds are needed to hire a second subcontractor for vegetative work. Initial plantings with hand labor have only been partially successful. Use of a subcontractor with specialized and mechanized equipment is expected to substantially increase the survival of plantings. The mechanized equipment should also be able to plant considerably more areas in a shorter period of time.
Reason for change in scope
The scope of work has not changed; just an adjustment in budgeting to more accurately reflect staff time and the addition of a second subcontractor to achieve greater results with revegetation work.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: yes
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
Comment:
This project was given a Tier 2 ranking by CBFWA in FY 2000 and a Fund for One Year by the ISRP. This was a Yes/Yes project on technical merit that did not receive funding in FY 2000 due to budget limitations. The WA SRT supported this project and its objectives as a Tier 2 last year and strongly support it since USFS has provided NEPA and other supporting work. There is one new Objective 1 under Section 6 ($14,533).Projected costs for FY2001 budget have increased primarily due to two factors. First, staffing time has been increased in the budget to more accurately reflect the workload on this project. More staff time has been put toward this project than previously anticipated. Other Yakama Nation funding had provided the additional time. Second, additional funds are needed to hire a second subcontractor for vegetative work. Initial plantings with hand labor have only been partially successful. Use of a subcontractor with specialized and mechanized equipment is expected to substantially increase the survival of plantings. The mechanized equipment should also be able to plant considerably more areas in a shorter period of time.
The scope of work has not changed, just an adjustment in budgeting to more accurately reflect staff time and the addition of a second subcontractor to achieve greater results with re-vegetation work.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
Comment:
Rationale: Budget increase inappropriate in this review. Project as not funded in 2000. Proposal appears to be extension of old project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
Comment:
