FY 2000 proposal 199705300

Additional documents

199705300 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleToppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment
Proposal ID199705300
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn Hatcher
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / lynn@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionIdentify extent of anadromous populations, identify land status, characterize habitat and discharge; model irrigation use; restore instream flows by land lease or purchase and/or water substitution; modify irrigation diversions to mimic natural runoff
Target speciesSteelhead (Mid-Columbia ESU)
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1998 Characterized magnitude, timing and extent of project watercourse (streams and man-made structures) discharge before, during and after one complete irrigation season. Discharge measurement data continue to be collected.
1998 Completed first year of comprehensive steelhead spawner surveys in project area streams
1998 Identified extent of habitat utilization by steelehead parr and juveniles in project watercourses, both natural and man-made.
1998 Rescued and relocated approximately 1,000 juvenile steelhead from stream reaches weeks from total desiccation to perennial reaches above diversion points.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Bureau of Rec.-Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (P.L. 96-162) Focused primarily on improving irrigation efficiency downstream (Wapato Irrigation Project) of 9705300. Provides habitat enhancement in adjacent reach of Toppenish Creek.
9705000 Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration
9901300 Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment
9603501 Satus Watershed Restoration
9803400 Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin
20117 Yakima River Subbasin Assessment (new)
9206200 Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration
9803300 Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed
20547 Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella
9705300 Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment
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 .5 FTE Fish Bio (lead), 1 FTE GIS Specialist, 1 FTE Tech II, .25 FTE Bookkeeper, .25 Office Assist $93,281
Fringe 25.3% of Personnel Salaries $23,600
Supplies Miscellaneous field supplies, office equipment, GIS Desktop computer $8,000
Operating Vehicle insurance, rental and mileage; Utilities, Office space rental, Repairs and Maintenance $11,050
Capital Land Purchase--80 acres @ $650/acre $52,000
Travel Includes Tech training, travel per diem $2,000
Indirect 23.5% calculated on all items in this budget except Capital acquisitions $34,247
Other Land rental--80 acres @ $35/acre $2,800
Subcontractor Irrigation Consultant $5,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$231,978
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$231,978
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Wapato Irrigation Project-Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (P.L. 96-162) Utilization of Irrigation Consultants working on Conservation Plan-capitalize on infrastructure and products (GIS) in place to aid 9705300 efforts thus eliminating start-up costs. Concepts and preliminary plans have been discussed, FY98. $0 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: High runoff exacerbating spawner surveys, inability to secure leases/buy lands due to current lease (which may extend past projected completion date) or unwilling landowners, GIS info which may need to be gathered rather than integrated from other sources

Reviews and recommendations

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

Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Fund. OK for a multi-year review cycle, ISRP should review again for FY 2002.

Comments: This is an example of a well-written habitat restoration proposal. It is a generally well written and convincing proposal. The program appears to have some strengths, and the programmatic needs and description suggest this project should have high priority. The synthesis of information collected from last year's operation suggests that the project has a high likelihood of identifying and making necessary changes in the watershed. The proposal could have described more explicitly alternative approaches to the problem and why they were rejected, and unwanted side effects and how they were considered.

This proposal offers a well-integrated set and logical sequence of objectives based on a conceptual approach that relates food webs and survival of diverse steelhead life stages to the "natural" discharge regime. It provides a good technical review and rationale for the fishery problem and chosen research approach. However, more citations are needed. A summary of results from the project to date could have provided additional support for continuing the work proposed here. For example, if a baseline of age structure and population densities has been established, these results could have been reported as an example of the sampling methods and performance measures. The rationale and importance of this project relative to other ongoing or potential restoration activities in the basin is not evaluated. This is not a fatal flaw since the chosen research design is supported by a clear conceptual approach.

The specific methods chosen for each objective should be better defined and supported. It is not clear, for example, whether the Proper Functioning Condition is the best method for riparian assessment, what kind of spawner surveys will provide a reasonable estimate of adult steelhead, or what the difficulties might be in estimating juvenile abundance from snorkel counts. The tradeoffs of alternate methods should be discussed relative to the scientific literature or current project results to support the chosen alternatives. There is very little description of the sampling design or sensitivity of the analyses to evaluate whether the monitoring effort has a reasonable chance of detecting changes associated with improved flow. It is also not clear how the monitoring design will be able to distinguish the effectiveness of flow restoration measures proposed here from the effects of active restoration measures proposed for the upper Toppenish watershed (#9803300).

The rationale for the estimated budget for purchasing land is not clear, particularly since the priority lands and water for acquisition presumably will not be decided until the Project Management Plan is prepared.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


We are concerned about future support by landowners to actually implement actions recommended by the assessment. Purchase of land is premature until assessment is complete. We support the assessment but question the follow up required until results are known. Objectives 4 and 5 should be delayed until assessment is complete.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


Not adequate justification for the data collection activities. Are these data necessary for management restoration action?

No information on why restoration methods were chosen or how effective they are.

Clearly define the link between restoration activities and moderating the flow regime.

How much water is needed to maintain summertime flow?

How much will fish production increase if the flow is augmented? Consider monitoring the fish response.

O& M part of budget seems excessive for office rental, vehicles, etc. Provide more detail on why this much is needed.

Mar 1, 2000


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