FY 1999 proposal 9158

Additional documents

TitleType
9158 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLittle Naches River Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project
Proposal ID9158
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation Fisheries Program (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 descriptionImprove 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
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 $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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.