FY 2000 proposal 199705000
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Little Naches River Riparian & In-channel Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 199705000 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation - Fisheries (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher, YIN Fisheries Program |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / yinfish@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Improve and restore degraded habitat and riparian conditions in the Little Naches River through the placement of trees and boulders in the channel to enhance rearing area and retain spawning gravels, construction of bank deflectors to reduce erosion and p |
| Target species | Mid-Columbia Spring Run Chinook, Mid-Columbia Summer Run Steelhead, resident trout and reintroduced Coho. |
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 |
Review of existing information and watershed analyses completed in the Little Naches |
|
Planning of restoration work in the Little Naches |
|
Monitoring and evaluation of habitat conditions in the lower three miles of the Little Naches including measurements of pool area, large woody debris frequency, canopy cover, channel width and depth. |
|
Riparian vegetation work on open or unstable banks and channels (installation of ~3000 deciduous cuttings and 600 coniferous seedlings) |
|
Completed design plans for installation of boulders and trees into the channel to improve rearing conditions and submitted environmental permitting (work to be completed summer of 1999). |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Umbrella |
dependence of supplementation on quality habitat conditions and carrying capacity |
| 9705100 |
Yakama Basin Side Channels |
|
| 9901300 |
Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment |
|
| 20117 |
Yakima Subbasin Watershed Assessment (new) |
|
| 9705000 |
Little Naches Riparian and In-channel Restoration |
|
| 9705300 |
Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment |
|
| 9803300 |
Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed |
|
| 9603501 |
Satus Watershed Restoration |
|
| 20547 |
Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella |
|
| 9803400 |
Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin |
|
| 9206200 |
Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Watershed Restoration Biologist, Fisheries Technician(s), contract administration |
$15,826 |
| Fringe |
|
$4,004 |
| Supplies |
Office supplies, operating supplies, vehicle rental, tree seedlings, cuttings |
$9,170 |
| Operating |
|
$4,480 |
| NEPA |
in-kind from the USFS |
$0 |
| Indirect |
|
$8,906 |
| Subcontractor |
Heavy equipment operation, purchasing of materials by subcontractor, transp |
$53,756 |
| $96,142 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $96,142 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $96,142 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| U.S. Forest Service |
NEPA permitting, archaeological review/survey |
$0 |
unknown |
| Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
Assistance in selection and design of restoration work |
$0 |
unknown |
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. Unexpected delays in acquiring environmental permits, could hinder completion of objective 4, enhancement of in-channel habitat conditions.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on correcting the noted deficiencies.
Comments:
This proposal does an adequate job of identifying the fishery problem in the basin and explaining how this project will address that need. It also makes a good connection to the FWP and the goals of other fish restoration projects in the basin. We could find no explanation, however, for why the Little Naches is most appropriate for these monies rather than some other tributary. The major weakness of this proposal was a failure to provide details, especially in discussing the use of supplemental monitoring, and how the success of the project will be measured. The proposal also did a less than adequate job of explaining how unwanted side effects, if any, were considered. The proposal needs measurable performance criteria.
The proposal notes that two watershed assessments and much monitoring data are already available. Instead of requesting funds for reviewing information that already exists, the results of this prior work should be an integral part of the proposal itself either to build a case for collecting new information in areas where data are lacking or to identify the particular limiting factors, restoration priorities, and sites that this proposal will now address. If more information is needed before limiting factors can be identified, then it may be premature to request funds for instream and riparian treatments.
Little information is given to evaluate whether the proposed instream or riparian activities would be the most beneficial relative to other actions that could be taken. It is unclear whether there are passive alternatives to the proposed restorative measures. The proposal does not indicate whether the sources of habitat/riparian losses have been corrected. The sampling protocols and designs that would be used to collect additional information about riparian and habitat conditions ("supplemental monitoring") are not described. In this case "monitoring" refers to a characterization of the current status of habitat. The proposal also does not describe any longer term monitoring design or methods to assess basin-wide effectiveness of the restoration projects. No information is provided about the qualifications of the individuals who would be responsible for this work. While the proposed actions could well be beneficial, this cannot be determined from the information that is provided.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This project occurs on Forest Service land and mitigates impacts of Forest Service activities. Funding for this project should be provided from USFS for mitigative actions.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
What leases will be purchased and why? Will it be enough to restore flows? This information is critical to deciding whether this project should proceed.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 10-13-99 Council Meeting];