Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199603501

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 Satus Watershed Restoration
BPA Project Proposal Number 199603501
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Yakama Indian Nation
Business acronym (if appropriate) YN
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Mangager
Mailing Address P.O. Box 151
City, State, Zip Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone 5098656262
Fax 5098656293
E-mail yinfish@yakama.com
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Yakima
 
Short Description Enhance and protect summer steelhead spawning and rearing habitat by restoring the ecological function of the Satus Creek watershed.
Target Species Yakima River summer steelhead


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: 7.6A-D, 7.8A, B, E
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References Strategies 2-7 for steelhead, yakima subbasin Plan, 1990. Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kush Wit, Yakima River Subbasin Plan, basinwide recommendations 3-5, pp. 58-59.


CBFWA-Generated Information

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


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1997 Dike removal
1998 Road obliteration
1997 Boulder placement
1996 Grazing (rest/management)
1996 Fire rehabilitation
1996 Revegetation
1996 Meadow restoration
1997 Large woody debris placement
1997 Aspen regeneration


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Umbrella dependence of supplementation on habitat carrying capacity No
9901300 Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment Yes
20547 Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella Yes
Yakima Subbasin Assessment (new) Yes
9803400 Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin Yes
9705000 Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration Yes
9705100 Yakima Basin Side Channels Yes
9705300 Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment Yes
9803300 Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed Yes
926200 Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Restore natural riparian and upland vegetation patterns. a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function
1. * Note, several tasks adress multiple objectives. b. Continue the patrol and maintenance of range fences in the Satus Creek watershed
1. g. characterize stream habitat conditions throughout the Satus watershed
1. i. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
1. j. Large woody debris placements
1. k. Enhance beaver habitat by propagating riparian hardwoods
1. l. Plant scattered ponderosa pine seedlings
1. m. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels
1. n. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process
2. Reduce erosion a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function
2. b. Continue the patrol and maintenance of range fences in the Satus Creek watershed
2. i. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
2. j. Large woody debris placements
2. k. Enhance beaver habitat by propagating riparian hardwoods
2. l. Plant scattered ponderosa pine seedlings
2. m. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels
2. n. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process
3. Moderate flow regime on fish bearing streams a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function
3. i. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
3. j. Large woody debris placements
3. k. Enhance beaver habitat by propagating riparian hardwoods
3. m. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels
3. n. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process
4. Improve aquatic habitat a. Restore grass and woody vegetation in areas critical to watershed function
4. i. Experimental treatment development and evaluation.
4. j. Large woody debris placement
4. k. Enhance beaver habitat by propagating riparian hardwoods
4. l. Plant scattered ponderosa pine seedlings
4. m. Rehabilitate incised ephemeral and intermittent channels
4. n. Reintegrate fire as a landscape process
5. Develop and assess large-scale, low-input restoration treatments, and disseminate findings in appropriate venues i. Experimental treatment development and evaluation
6. Monitor and evaluate cost-effectiveness of restoration treatments c. Characterize and quantify streamflow
6. d. Characterize suspended sediment transport
6. e. Climatological monitoring
6. f. Channel survey
6. g. Characterize stream habitat conditions throughout the Satus watershed
6. h. Fisheries survey

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 04/01/00 04/01/05 restore natural riparian and upland vegetation patterns Reduced erosion on unstable upland sites and increased abundance and diversity of riparian vegetation 25.0%
2 04/01/00 04/01/05 reduce erosion Substantial decrease in turbidity 25.0%
3 04/01/00 04/01/05 moderate the flow regime on fish bearing streams Increased summer baseflows 25.0%
4 04/01/00 04/01/05 improve aquatic habitat Measurable improvement in habitat quality and utilization 15.0%
5 04/01/00 04/01/05 develop and assess large-scale, low-input restoration treatments, and disseminate findings in appropriate venues Technical publications and presentations 10.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel Includes a total of 2.4 fte professional staff, 3.5 fte technicians, and .25 fte bookkeeper $202,160
Fringe 25.3% $ 51,146
Supplies Includes: seed, erosion control supplies, fence materials, miscellaneous field supplies. $ 41,900
Operating Includes: Building rental, utilities, vehicles + maintenance, heavy equipment rental, insurance,etc. $ 93,795
Travel Travel for various symposia, workshops, etc. $ 7,000
Indirect 23.5% $ 93,695
Subcontractor Cattele impoundment $ 12,700
Total Itemized Budget $502,396


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $502,396
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $502,396
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
Washington State Department of Transportation Collaboration on U.S. HWY 97 segement relocation and maintenance mitigation $ 0 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $400,000 $375,000 $110,000 $110,000
Total Outyear Budgets $400,000 $375,000 $110,000 $110,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Unfavorable climatic conditions are the foremost constraints on accomplishing objectives. At present, we are uncertain what affect the Endangered Species Act will have on project activities.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Brooks, K.B., P.F. Ffolliott, H.M. Gregersen, and J.L. Thames. 1991. Hydrology and the management of watersheds. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Yes
Columbia River Tribal Fish Commission, 1996. 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, Volume II. 129 pp. + appendices. No
Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Kreuger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and stream management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management 37: 430-437. No
Kauffman, J.B., R.L. Case, D. Lytjen, N. Otting, and D.L. Cummings. 1995. Ecological approaches to riparian restoration in northeastern Oregon. Restoration and Management Notes 13:12-15. No
Megahan, W.F. 1987. Pages 335-348 in A.S. Balasubramanian et al, eds. Environmental geotechnics and problematic soils and rocks, proceedings of the symposium, December 1985. Balkema, Rotterdam. No
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy Press. No
Schuett-Hames, D, A. Pleus, L. Bullchild and S. Hall, eds, 1994. Timber-Fish-Wildlife Ambient Monitoring Program Manual. TFW-AM9-94-001. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, Washington. Yes


Section 7. Abstract

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
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on correcting the noted deficiencies.

Comments: This was a well written and convincing proposal. The program appears to have many strengths, including broad scale interagency support, participation, and active monitoring and assessment. It also has several significant weaknesses. The proposal could have been improved by providing more scientific citations and documentation. The programmatic needs and goals could have been supported by citations supporting the decline in populations abundance, changes in the watershed, or the watershed assessment. The methods section contained good general descriptions, but could have been supported by scientific references to show that these were based on the best available scientific techniques.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$472,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Project budget appears high in personnel costs. Due to the nature of the demonstration project and continued support, we would like to follow through with our commitment to complete the restoration project. We expect to see allocation of technical staff time reduced in future years. There should be funding available through CREP for riparian restoration.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
No evidence that past activities have met any biological objectives.

Monitoring and assessment plans do not provide enough detail. How will the sponsor assess surface/groundwater connections?

Tasks presented in the Methods section are redundant.

What land will be purchased and why?

What will happen to the money allocated for capital acquisitions if no land is purchased?


NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$472,252
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$388,600
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$388,600
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$388,600
Sponsor (Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Indian Nation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page