FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199803300

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
199803300 Narrative	Narrative
199803300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
199803300 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Restore Upper Toppenish Watershed
Proposal ID	199803300
Organization	Yakama Nation (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Tom McCoy
Mailing address	Box 151 Toppenish, WA. 98942
Phone / email	5098656262 / tmccoy@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project	Lynn Hatcher
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Yakima
Short description	Moderate flow regime in Toppenish Creek by increasing the retentiveness of natural soil water storage areas, such as headwater meadows and floodplains, following prioritized plan generated by FY98-99 watershed assessment.
Target species	Yakima summer steelhead

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.33	-121	This is the approximate center of the project area

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS/BPA	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.
NMFS	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2000	Watershed assessment completed
1999	Willy Dick Creek crossing completed
2000	Phase 1 grazing program implemented

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
8812001	Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Program	Supports habitat goals for supplementation
9603501	Satus Watershed Project	The Upper Toppenish Project is an extension of the Satus Project
9206200	Yakama Nation Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Area Restoration	Projects share similar objectives, share staff + resources, and abut against eachother in the lower watershed
9705300	Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment	The Topp-Sim project addresses irrigation issues with water delivered directly from the upper Toppenish Watershed. These projects also share staff and resources.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Moderate flow regime	a. rehabilitate degraded channels	ongoing	$8,055
	b. reestablish access to floodplains		$0
	c. improve road drainage		$0
	d. improve beaver habitat		$0
2. Foster vegetative recovery.	e. re-integrate fire as a management tool	ongoing	$5,370
	f. restore vegetation where natural recovery is not occuring		$0
3. Participate in landuse management planning activities.	g. continue participating in planning exercies for: timber harvest, burning, grazing, roads, irrigation, fish/wildlife	ongoing	$9,397
4. Improve fish spawning/rearing and wildlife habitat.	see tasks a-g, above	ongoing	$4,028

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Moderate flow regime	2003	2006	$36,450
2. Foster vegetative recovery.	2003	2006	$24,300
3. Participate in landuse management planning activities.	2003	2006	$42,525
4. Improve fish spawning/rearing and wildlife habitat.	2003	2006	$18,225

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$28,200	$29,600	$31,100	$32,600

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
1. Moderate flow regime	a. rehabilitate degraded channels	ongoing	$59,074
	b. reestablish access to floodplains	ongoing	$0
	c. Improve road drainage	ongoing	$0
	d. improve beaver habitat	ongoing	$0
2. Foster vegetative recovery.	moderate flow regime (see objective 1)	ongoing	$59,074
	e. re-integrate fire as a vegetation management tool	ongoing	$0
	f. restore vegetation where natural regeneration is not occuring	ongoing	$0
4. Improve fish spawning/rearing and wildlife habitat.	see all of the above	ongoing	$29,536

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Moderate flow regime	2003	2006	$255,600
2. Foster vegetative recovery.	2003	2006	$255,600
4. Improve fish spawning/rearing and wildlife habitat.	2003	2006	$127,800

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$155,000	$163,000	$171,000	$150,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
2. Foster vegetative recovery.	maintain vegetative treatments and patrol livestock	ongoing	$13,426

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
2. Foster vegetative recovery.	2003	2006	$60,700

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$14,100	$14,800	$15,500	$16,300

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost
5. Monitor and evaluate results	h. monitor treatments	ongoing	$80,557
	i. monitor fish and wildlife populaitons	ongoing	$0
	j. evaluate findings and integrate into adaptive management strategies	ongoing	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
5. Monitor and evaluate results	2003	2006	$364,550

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$84,600	$88,800	$93,250	$97,900

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 4.2 (1.125 professional and the remainder are technicians + office assistants)	$128,096
Fringe	charged at 25.3% and 17.6%	$25,974
Supplies		$21,800
Travel		$2,000
Indirect		$49,192
Capital		$0
NEPA		$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor		$10,000
Other	vehicles, utilities, repairs, fuel, etc.	$31,455
		$268,517

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$268,517
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$268,517
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$125,000
% change from forecast	114.8%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Recent implemention of the Endangered Species Act has opened up several new cost sharing opportunities to further restore the natural resources of the Satus Watershed. Participating organizations include the: Bureau of Indian Affairs and Yakama Nation.

Reason for change in scope

To facilitate and participate in several new restoration opportunities.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Burea of Indian affairs	commitment of financial and technical support for road and stream crossing improvements	$420,000	cash
Yakama Nation	commitment of congressionally allocated funds to reestablish floodplain function.	$1,440,000	cash
Tribal livestock permittees	assist with developing livestock management infrastructure	$4,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Do not fund unless an adequate response is provided. The goals of the proposal are laudable, but the proposal does not provide enough specificity as to exactly what will be done, why those actions/locations are the correct priorities, and how the dollars will be spent.

This project is closely related to the project above 199705300. It provides movement toward "proper functioning system" (PFS is a checklist based on physical characteristics and vegetation). They use this checklist to prioritize and identify restoration actions. Anecdotally, a culvert replacement in this watershed showed significant steelhead spawning after one year. The program appears to have many strengths, including the expansion from the Satus Creek restoration efforts and emphasis on monitoring. So it is very generally credible that there is a need, and that the proposed actions address it. But more specific detail is needed before we could recommend funding. The proposal should explicitly describe alternative approaches to the problem and why they were rejected in favor of the proposed approach. The watershed is 625 square miles, but the size of the project portion, and the exact reasons for choosing locations, and the treatments at each, are not explained.

There is a 100+% increase in the funding request to take advantage of unidentified cost-share opportunities, which need to be explained.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable, but in future submittals and in the statement of work to BPA they should include milestones with specific measurable goals. The response was marginal and the proposal was not up to the standards of the other Yakama Nation habitat proposals. This project is closely related to the project 199705300. It provides movement toward "proper functioning system" (PFS is a checklist based on physical characteristics and vegetation). They use this checklist to prioritize and identify restoration actions. Anecdotally, a culvert replacement in this watershed showed significant steelhead spawning after one year. The program appears to have many strengths, including the expansion from the Satus Creek restoration efforts and emphasis on monitoring. So it is very generally credible that there is a need, and that the proposed actions address it.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Reduce sediment, improve riparian habitat and potentially improve late summer base flows for steelhead in Toppenish Creek.

Comments
Project mitigates for BIA land management impacts to Toppenish Creek Watershed

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank A

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

There is evidence of additional funds being available in this watershed, i.e., BIA’s commitment of financial and technical support for road and stream crossing improvements - $420,000; Yakama Nation commitment of congressionally-allocated funds to reestablish floodplain function - $1,440,000; and Tribal livestock permittees assistance with developing livestock management infrastructure - $4,000 (in-kind). It is not clear whether any of these funds are being offered for this particular project.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Accruals low again, but caught in contracting delays. Check on possibility of contract consolidation. 54K in accruals, late start. Looking to reinstate the project proposal numbers. 05 represents a COLA.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

This project is fully involved in the implementation phase detailed in the FY2001 proposal. The Upper Toppenish Project has a long history of accomplishment and demonstrated success. Funding below the requested FY04 level of $296,000 and $310,850 in FY05

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$415,046	$415,046	$415,046

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website