FY 2000 proposal 20117

Additional documents

20117 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleYakima River Subbasin Assessment
Proposal ID20117
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Manager
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionCompile and evaluate existing fisheries and watershed information and perform field verification to prioritize protection, restoration and analysis needs throughout the Yakima River Subbasin, based on potential benefit to the fisheries resources.
Target speciesYakima River chinook, coho, steelhead
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments


Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
20510 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Umbrella Dependence of supplementation on habitat carrying capacity
9803300 Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed
9901300 Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment
9803400 Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin
9705000 Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration
9705300 Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration
926200 Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project
9603501 Satus Watershed Restoration
20547 Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella
9705100 Yakima Basin Side Channels

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel Project Manager, 640 hours, Bookkeeper, 80 hours $15,311
Fringe @ 25.3% $3,874
Supplies Miscellaneous supplies $2,000
Operating vehicles, fuel, repairs, insurance $8,900
Indirect @ 23.5% $7,070
Subcontractor $197,904
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$235,059
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$235,059
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Weather conditions will affect the timing of field studies; the initiation of the assessment is timed accordingly.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Delay Funding
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Delay funding until deficiencies are corrected

Comments: A subbasin assessment is clearly needed. However, the proposal is vague about what it specifically plans to do. The proposal does not define the key questions or concepts that will be used to integrate disparate layers of information. For example, it is not clear how the list of social-economic studies, legislation, maps, etc. will be integrated with the other physical and biological information.

The background material on hydrologic conditions in the subbasin is not the most relevant information needed to justify this proposal. The background section should discuss the technical literature regarding watershed assessment procedures and results: Where have they been used, what alternative methods have been tried, which ones have been most and least successful? From this background, the proposal should define the kind of assessment most appropriate for the Yakima subbasin. It is unclear whether the watershed assessment proposed here would overlap with the assessment of off-channel habitats described in #9705100 or the 1997 work under #9704700.

The Proper Functioning Condition methodology, which relies on expert opinion, needs to be discussed and evaluated relative to alternative stream/riparian assessment techniques that are available. Considerable work has been done on evaluating stream and riparian habitat conditions throughout the Pacific Northwest. There is not scientific consensus about the PFC approach. The budget for the subcontract needs to be spelled out. It is the bulk of the project, yet the elements of the subcontract are not itemized. Most of the personnel assigned to this work would be hired under the subcontract. It is not possible to evaluate qualifications because the individuals have not been identified. Would two different teams or a single team be used for the work proposed under the Klickitat and Yakima subbasin assessments?

The criteria for establishing habitat priorities and "potential fisheries value" from the assessment data need to be described. The proposal should build a rationale for what data will be integrated to define high priority areas for protection. The use of the proposed assessment for developing future proposals and restoration activities should be discussed. Will ongoing projects be re-evaluated in light of the results? The proposal was submitted as a information dissemination/database proposal, but failed to directly address many of the criteria by which these kinds of proposal would be judged. These include describing the mechanism for assuring quality control, how widely used the assessment would be, and how the impact of the information would be measured.

The budgets for the Yakima and Klickitat assessments are the same, but the Yakima is significantly larger. Shouldn't the limiting factors have been determined before the supplementation program was implemented?

Do Not Fund
Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


The WA SRT is not content that there is a need for additional comprehensive documents in this basin, however, this project is designed to meet the need and requirement of the NPPC to address watershed assessments. Enough information exists in this watershed to support a comprehensive document. The scope of this project should be limited to compiling and integrating existing data into a comprehensive watershed assessment. A similar study was conducted for YRBWEP in 1998-99 covering a review and synthesis of data related to instream flow provisions in the Yakima River Ecosystem. The watershed assessment would include information such as the report from the BOR that, for the most part, has already been developed.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


Proposal lacks detail.

Not clear why additional monitoring is needed to assess watershed conditions since both the state and federal governments have already done this.

Tasks listed in methods section are redundant and not in a logical sequence.

Not clear how restoration activities will be monitored to gauge their effectiveness. No specific goals or targets in terms of habitat changes or fish productivity in response to restoration.

Why is the Little Naches important as a habitat for anadromous fish?

Do Not Fund
Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];