FY 2000 proposal 199803300

Additional documents

199803300 Narrative Narrative
199803300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed
Proposal ID199803300
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 / yinfish@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionModerate 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 analysis.
Target speciesMid-Columbia summer 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
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
20117 Yakima Subbasin Assessment
9705000 Little Naches Riparian and In-Channel Restoration
9705300 Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment
9603501 Satus Watershed Restoration
20547 Yakima Subbasin Habitat/Watershed Project Umbrella
9206200 Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration
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 See budget narrative for details. $79,289
Fringe at 25.3% $20,060
Supplies Office, seed, erosion control, revegetation, fencing, water development, miscellaneous. $20,450
Operating Office rental, utilities, vehicles, fuel, repairs, equipment rental, insurance $47,215
Travel $600
Indirect @ 23.5% $39,389
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$207,003
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$207,003
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 is the major constraint on operations. Winter conditions can inhibit access over primitive roads or in stream channels. The length of the season for propagating vegetation is limited by duration of soil moisture

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 a watershed assessment is complete and a site plan and systematic evaluation of the limiting factors to justify the activities has been prepared.

Comments: The proposal provides some useful context regarding factors affecting the storage capacity of watersheds. However, it jumps from this textbook discussion of watershed processes to a list of objectives and specific methods for Toppenish Creek. The proposal does not identify the specific problem areas, limiting factors, or rationale for the particular activities listed. It is therefore impossible to evaluate whether the proposed actions are the most useful among all others that might otherwise have been chosen.

The proposal notes that a watershed assessment was initiated in late 1998. These results are needed to provide a site-specific restoration plan that is based on the limiting factors and source areas contributing to specific problems in Toppenish Creek watershed. The proposal does not discuss any potential risks of the treatment methods. The proposal should refer to the technical literature to give some indication whether the proposed methods have been effective elsewhere or are likely to be effective in this watershed. The proposal does not discuss whether there are passive alternatives to the proposed headcut stabilization activities and instream retention structures.

The program appears to have many strengths, including the expansion from the Satus Creek restoration efforts and emphasis on monitoring. 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. Objectives were stated in terms that were measurable, but they were primarily focused on structural changes in habitat. These are easier to measure in the short-term than population characteristics, but ultimately the success of the project must be judged by increases in the production, distribution, and diversity of fish in the watershed. The proposal could have described more explicitly alternative approaches to the problem and why they were rejected. It is not clear how a budget for this project could be developed without an explicit plan for the number of sites and treatments needed. It would seem logical that the watershed analysis should be completed first to provide a foundation for a detailed restoration plan. If these results are not yet available, then a plan development phase may be needed for this project before trying to implement the specific activities described here.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


No specific actions are listed to address the direct cause of the problems (land management activities). We would like to see the document that shows a prioritized list of needs for the Toppenish Creek watershed as referenced in the proposal. This project should be tied to the Satus Creek project (#9603501) due to similarities in goals, activities and target species in order to reduce outyear budget obligations.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999


Provide a better justification for restoration activities since there appear to be only 50-100 fish returning. How much do you expect production to increase.

Clearly describe the existing condition within the watershed.

Demonstrate the link between actions and direct biological benefits.

Fund pending compliance
Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract Process
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:
$415,046 $415,046 $415,046

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website