Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199206200

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Yakama Nation - Riparian/Wetlands Restoration
BPA Project Proposal Number 199206200
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Yakama Indian Nation
Business acronym (if appropriate) YN

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Tracy Hames
Mailing Address P.O. Box 151
City, State, Zip Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone 5098656262
Fax 5098653619
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Yakima
Short Description Continue implementation of YIN Wetlands/Riparian Restoration Project by protecting and restoring riparian and wetland habitat along anadromous fish bearing rivers and streams in the agricultural area of the Yakama Indian Reservation (~2,500 acres/year).
Target Species All wildlife species affected by the hydro development of the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers.

Project Location

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 11.3D.5 - Ongoing Wildlife Mitigation Projects, 11.3F.3 - Snake River Compensation Program, 7.6 - Habitat Goal, Policies and Objectives
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: N/A
Other Planning Document References Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit Spirit of the Salmon (1995), Yakima Watershed Council 20/20 Vision for the Yakima Basin (1997), Plan for the Intermountain West Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (Ratti and Kadlec 1997), Yakama Nation Wetlands/Riparian Plan (1994), Yakama Nation Mitigation Plan (1991), Yakama Nation Waterfowl Management Plan (1989)

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): wildlife

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1991 Completed initial project plan including Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) estimates for the project area.
1992 Obtained predesign funding for implementation plan.
1993 Developed implementation plan and identified 15 priority areas for inclusion into the project (total of 27,000 acres).
1993 Project progrommatic NEPA work completed, FONSI signed.
1994 Obj. 1: Secured Priority Area 1 (430 ac).
1994 Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored.
1995 Obj. 1: Secured Priority Area 2 (3,800 ac).
1995 Obj. 2: Restored wetlands on Priority Area 1.
1995 Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored.
1996 Obj. 1: Secured Priority Area 3 (660 ac).
1996 Obj. 2: Began restoration activities on Areas 2 and 3, began native grass restoration on Area 1.
1996 Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored.
1997 Obj. 1: Began land securing process for all or portions of Priority Areas 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 and 15.
1997 Obj.2: Finished restoration of Priority Areas 1 and 3, continued restoration of Priority Area 2.
1997 Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored.
1998 Obj. 1: Secured portions of Priority Areas 5, 10, 11, 12 and 15 (total of 3,415 acres).
1998 Obj. 2: Completed wetlands restoration on Priority Area 2.
1998 Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored.
1999 Obj. 1: Will complete land securing procedures on Priority Area 4 (~2,500 acres).
1999 Obj. 2: Restoration will begin on Priority Areas 5, 10, 11, 12 and 15.
1999 Objs. 3 and 4 are ongoing each year and are completed as each property is secured and restored.

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9705300 Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment Yes
9901300 Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment Yes
9803400 Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin Yes
9705100 Yakima Basin Side Channels Yes
9603501 Satus Watershed Restoration Yes
9206200 Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration (this proposal) Yes
20547 Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella Yes
9705000 Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration Yes
9803300 Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed Yes

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Secure available restoration priority area properties (2,000 - 3,000 acres per year). a. Determine land ownership (YIN or non-YIN). This task was completed in 1994.
1. b. Secure land in perpetuity with appropriate procedure outlined in project implementation plan (purchase, easement or lease).
2. Protect, restore and/or enhance secured lands to realize a net increase in wildlife habitat values. a. Develop site-specific restoration plan for secured property according to procedures outlined in Project implementation plan.
2. b. Implement site-specific restoration activities identified in Task 2a.
3. Adaptively manage properties to ensure permanent wildlife habitat value. a. Develop site-specific operations and management plans.
3. b. Manage habitats according to site-specific plans.
3. c. Adjust management according to results achieved in monitoring activities.
4. Monitor wildlife habitat conditions to ensure the desired mitigation level is reached and maintained. a. Perform baseline and periodic HEP analyses to measure habitat responses to management activities and to monitor mitigation levels achieved.
4. b. Develop and perform habitat response monitoring according to restoration goals set out in the site-specific management plans.
4. c. Perform wildlife surveys on selected populations to ensure that habitat responses are resulting in wildlife responses.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/92 09/01/20 Acres of land protected. 27,000 acres 60.0%
2 06/01/93 09/01/22 Habitat acres restored. 27,000 acres 25.0%
3 06/01/93 12/01/52 Habitat values maintained. 27,000 acres 8.0%
4 06/01/93 12/01/52 Habitat values and use documented. Documentation of above objectives. 7.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 2 Professional FTEs, 6 Technician FTEs, 1 Office Support FTE $275,000
Fringe 25% of Personnel $ 68,750
Supplies Office supplies, computers, building lease, etc. $ 6,000
Operating Fence repair, tools, etc. $ 85,700
Capital Land purchase, farm equipment $1,184,045
NEPA Completed $ 0
Construction $ 5,000
Travel $ 5,000
Indirect 23.5% of budget, excluding capitol purchases and construction $103,505
Other M&E, Insurance $ 7,000
Subcontractor Ducks Unlimited, Engineering design, etc. $ 10,000
Total Itemized Budget $1,750,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $1,750,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $1,750,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Americorps Labor for Restoration Activities $200,000 unknown
Pheasants Forever Native grass seed $ 20,000 unknown
National Resource Conservation Service Wetlands restoration and commodity credit funds $ 50,000 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000
Total Outyear Budgets $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: The level of funding achieved has been the only constraint on this project. Presently there is more land available for inclusion into the project than there are funds allocated on an annual basis.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Beak Consultants, Inc. 1993. Audit of wildlife loss assessments for Federal dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries. Proj. No. 73485, Prepared for Northw. Power Plan. Coun., Portland, Ore. 70pp. No
Bonneville Power Administration. 1994. Lower Yakima Valley wetlands and riparian restoration project final environmental assessment, DOE No. 0941. 58pp. No
Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. 1995. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon): The Columbia River anadromous fish restoration plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes. Vols. 1-2. CRITFC, Portland, Ore. No
Meuth, J. 1989. Yakama Indian Nation waterfowl management plan. Preparred by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Yakama Indian Nation. 190pp. No
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1989. Wildlife mitigation rule and response to comments. Publ. No. 89-35. No
Rassmussen, L., and P. Wright. 1990a. Wildlife impact assessment, Bonneville Project, Oregon and Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Ore. 37pp. No
Rassmussen, L., and P. Wright. 1990b. Wildlife impact assessment, John Day Project, Oregon and Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Ore. 27pp. No
Rassmussen, L., and P. Wright. 1990c. Wildlife impact assessment, The Dalles Project, Oregon and Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Ore. 24pp. No
Rassmussen, L., and P. Wright. 1990d. Wildlife impact assessment, McNary Project, Oregon and Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Ore. 28pp. No
Ratti, J., and J. Kadlec. 1992. Concept plan for the preservation of wetland habitat of the intermountain west. Preparred for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. rep., Portland, Ore. 164pp. No
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP). Ecol. Serv. Manual 102. Div. Ecol. Serv., Washington D. C. No
Yakama Indian Nation. 1991. The Yakama Indian Nation wildlife mitigation plan. YIN Wildl. Resour. Manage., Toppenish, Wash. 62pp. No
____. 1994. Yakama Indian Nation lower Yakima Valley wetlands and riparian restoration plan. YIN Wildl. Resour. Manage., Toppenish, Wash. 62pp. No
Yakima River Watershed Council. 1997. A 20/20 vision for a viable future of the water resources of the Yakima River Basin. Publ. by YRWC. Yakima, Wash. No

Section 7. Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on correcting noted deficiencies.

Comments: In terms of budget, longevity, and potential benefits, this seems to be one of the more important projects in the subbasin. The proposal provides a useful description of the programmatic background and history of the project. But it is disappointing for its lack of technical detail, description of ecological objectives, and evaluation of the work completed to date. The proposal seems to define success primarily by the total number of acres that have been acquired and/or treated (e.g., doing what the plan said it would do) rather than by the effectiveness of the treatments (e.g., have restoration efforts met their ecological objectives?). It is impossible to evaluate effectiveness to date on the basis of the information provided. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the monitoring program itself will be sufficient to supply this information.

The proposal needs to define measurable habitat objectives. A technical description of the HEP approach, its strengths and weaknesses, should be provided to justify why this is the appropriate measure of habitat values and whether this provides a sufficient scientific basis for monitoring ecological success. It is not clear from the proposal what cover types the program (and this proposal) is intended to restore, how quantitative objectives for each cover type were determined, and how successful re-establishment of these types will be evaluated.

The proposal emphasizes wildlife values, particularly waterfowl. It is unclear whether values established for waterfowl will support or undermine values for anadromous fish. The proposal suggests that this project has integrated wildlife restoration activities with those for anadromous fish (p. 4581), but does not show how this has been accomplished. There is no mention of monitoring associated with fishery values. The monitoring design cannot be evaluated from the information provided. The methods used in the past or proposed for future restoration activities are not discussed in detail. Alternative methods, including passive versus active techniques, are not evaluated.

The proposal has a specific objective for adaptive management. Yet, despite acquisitions going back to 1993 and continued restoration activity since 1995, the proposal provides no data to demonstrate that efforts to date have been successful or whether changes in the 8-year-old project plan are warranted. The budget includes more than $1 million for capitol expenses. A better description of the items that will be purchased is needed. Purchase of "equipment such as tractors, seed drills, etc." only gives a vague impression of how the money will be spent. How much for property? How many tractors and seed drills?

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Provide details on past accomplishments and how well they have met the biological objectives. How will success be measured? Project started in 1992 but there are few details about how it has benefited fish and wildlife.

Identify when the land will be purchased (this fiscal year?). The sponsor requests $1.2 million for land acquisition but does not provide an indication of where the land will be purchased.

Explain how HEP will be used. How will the success of specific activities be defined. What measure of increase/decrease will be used?

Provide more detail in Section 10. Information/technology transfer. It is difficult to know how well the project is faring.

Why is Objective 1.Task a. listed if it was completed in 1994?

This is a high budget but it includes few details on key personnel and their past activities and successes.

Clearly identify the target population.

Provide more details on information transfer. What talks have been given and where? What information has been shared and how? This is an expensive project but the proponents present little evidence of how the project is faring.

CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]

CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Proponent reduction

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
Sponsor (Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Indian Nation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page