Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Project Number:
1992-062-00
Title:
Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Summary:
The purpose of this project is to continue implementation of the YN Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Wildlife Mitigation work that began in 1991 (Contract Number 94BI12521). The advance design work and implementation protocols were completed in 1991-93 as Project Number 92-062. An Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), based on these implementation plans, were developed in 1994 (DOE No. 0941). Project implementation began immediately after the FONSI was signed.

The guiding documents mentioned above are cited below. These plans, assessments and agreements (totaling over 300 pages) are very extensive and provide the basis for this Statement of Work. The reader is encouraged to refer to these documents for detailed information pertaining to the objectives and tasks outlined below.

The goals of this Project are as follows:

1) To permanently protect 27,000 acres of floodplain lands along the Yakima River, Toppenish and Satus Creeks within the agricultural portion of the Yakama Reservation.

2) To enhance those lands to realize a net increase in native fish and wildlife habitat values.

3) To adaptively manage those lands to ensure permanent fish and wildlife value.

4) To monitor the habitat conditions to ensure the desired habitat value is reached and maintained.

This project is being undertaken pursuant to Section 1003(b)(7) of the Wildlife Mitigation Rule promulgated by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). The Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Project is consistent with subbasin fish and wildlife mitigation priorities established by the NPPC. This project also reflects and supports the fish and wildlife mitigation objectives developed for the Lower Columbia River Dams resulting from the Power Council-mandated public revue process outlined in Section 1003(b)(4)(B) &(D) for the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program.

National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion of the Federal Columbia River Power System - Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPA)

This project addresses the following RPAs:

Action 150: This project protects currently productive non-federal habitat along streams with listed steelhead. Toppenish and Satus Creeks are responsible for >60% of the total steelhead production in the Yakima Subbasin.

Action 151: This project is directly involved in increasing instream flows within Toppenish and Satus Creeks by purchasing lands currently served by creek diversions.

Actions 152, 153: This project is utilizing and pursuing funding from many sources for restoration cost-share. These include USDA (WHIP, CREP, WRP), North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), BOR, BIA, Pheasants Forever, and many other sources as they are appropriate. The project seeks to go beyond a simple buffer system along these important waterways. Instead, total floodplain restoration is the goal.

Action 154: Planning activities related to this project are incorporated directly into Yakima Subbasin summaries, assessments and plans. The methods and successes of this project are important to these future subbasin planning activities.

Project Guiding Documents

Bich, J., T. Hames, S. McCorquodale, J. Reichel, and W. Bradley. 1991. The Yakama Nation Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. 62pp.

Washington Wildlife Coalition, and Bonneville Power Administration. 1993. Washington Wildlife Mitigation Agreement. 22pp.

Yakama Nation. 1994. Yakama Nation Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan - Predesign Management Plan. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, OR. 164pp.

Bonneville Power Administration, Yakama Nation, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1994. Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Project - Final Environmental Assessment. DOE No. 0941. Portland, OR 58pp.

Bonneville Power Administration, and Yakama Nation. 1996. Memorandum of Agreement for the Implementation of the Lower Yakima Valley Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Project. Portland, OR


Supporting Documents Providing Further Implementation Methods and Protocols

Yakama Nation. 1984. Current Status of the Yakama Nation's Public Hunting and Fishing Program with Planning Recommendations for future Management. Yakama Tribal Council, Toppenish, WA. 12pp.

_____. 1987. Land and Natural Resource Policy Plan (T-92-87). Yakama Tribal Council, Toppenish, WA. 26pp.

Meuth, J. 1989. Yakama Nation Waterfowl Management Plan. Prepared by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servic
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Yakama Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1992
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Yakima 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
Other Anadromous
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 75.0%   Resident: 25.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: Page: 1 Cover: Hen Mallard at the South Lateral A Wildlife Area

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 1569 x 1362

Description: Page: 3 Land-Photo 1: Graves Property outlined in orange.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 637 x 825

Description: Page: 5 Outreach-Photo 1: Washington Waterfowl Association volunteers.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 1074 x 720

Description: Page: 33 Cultural-Photo 1: Fire Modified Rock

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 572 x 429

Description: Page: 34 Cultural-Photo 2: 1930s Gum Machine

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 651 x 488

Description: Page: 35 Cultural-Photo 3: Projectile Point

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 475 x 356

Description: Page: 35 Cultural-Photo 4: Fire hearth

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 477 x 358

Description: Page: 36 Cultural-Photo 5: Housepit feature

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 485 x 364

Description: Page: 37 Cultural-Photo 6: Parker property

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 525 x 394

Description: Page: 42 Floodplain-Figure 1: Photograph of Tule Road restoration before treatment in spring 2006.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 949 x 712

Description: Page: 43 Floodplain-Figure 2: Photograph of Tule Road restoration in spring 2008 following two years of invasive plant treatment and direct seeding of native bunchgrasses. Small plants are one-year old basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), approximately 18 months after planting.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 949 x 709

Description: Page: 45 Floodplain-Figure 4: Seeding in October 2008 at the Buena property using a no-till drill seeder.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 899 x 674

Description: Page: 45 Floodplain-Figure 5: Approximately 500 shrubs were planted at the South Lateral A and Campbell Road properties in April 2008. Species included sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), golden currant (Ribes aureum), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and mock-orange (Philadelphus lewisii). Survival estimates are presented in the “Monitoring Vegetation Restoration” section.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 899 x 674

Description: Page: 46 Floodplain-Figure 6: Transplants were planted as bare root seedlings. After transplanting, a wood chip mulch (oak and pine) was applied to a 2-foot radius around the plant. Plants were irrigated with 1-2 gallons of water every 2-3 weeks during the summer drought. Plants were tagged at the time of planting for survival monitoring the following spring. For estimates of survival, see the “Monitoring Vegetation Restoration” section.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 899 x 674

Description: Page: 47 Monitoring-Photo 1: No caption provided.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 593 x 444

Description: Page: 48 Monitoring-Figure 1: Buena property, July 2005, prior to beginning restoration activities. Invasive plants including prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) and tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) are visible in the frame.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 899 x 674

Description: Page: 48 Monitoring-Figure 2: Buena property, May 2008, following nearly three years of weed control. The site was planted in October 2008.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 899 x 674

Description: Page: 49 Monitoring-Figure 3: North White Swan property during weed control activities, but prior to fencing and revegetation, in June 2006.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 896 x 669

Description: Page: 49 Monitoring-Figure 4: North White Swan property, September 2008, 10 months following planting of native grasses. Bunchgrasses are visible in the foreground and background.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 896 x 671

Description: Page: 50 Monitoring-Figure 5: Old Goldendale (Pumphouse Road) property in July 2005, prior to restoration activities. The site was dominated by Kochia scoparia, whitetop (Cardaria draba), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium).

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 896 x 671

Description: Page: 50 Monitoring-Figure 6: Old Goldendale (Pumphouse Road) property in August 2006 following 12 months of weed control. Practices included mechanical and chemical weed control.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 896 x 669

Description: Page: 51 Monitoring-Figure 7: Old Goldendale (Pumphouse Road) property in September 2008, nearly two years following revegetation with native bunchgrasses. Basin wildrye plants are visible in foreground and background.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113829

Dimensions: 896 x 671

Description: Page: 15 Ecological-Figure 1: Study sites on the Meninick Wildlife Area. CSB = connected spring brook, DSC = disconnected side channel, DP = disconnected pond.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1224 x 1584

Description: Page: 18 Ecological-Figure 4: Distribution of Old Goldendale restoration site vegetation communities, Summer 2008.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1650 x 1275

Description: Page: 19 Ecological-Figure 5: Distribution of Old Goldendale restoration site bulrush communities, Summer 2008.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1650 x 1275

Description: Page: 20 Ecological-Figure 6: Distribution of Old Goldendale restoration site reed canary grass communities, Summer 2008.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1650 x 1275

Description: Page: 31 Ecological-Figure 18: NDVI classification of Landsat imagery for the Yakama Nation Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Project annexation corridor.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1650 x 1275

Description: Page: 32 Ecological-Figure 19: Non-NDVI Classification of Landsat imagery for the Yakama Nation Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Project annexation corridor.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1650 x 1275

Description: Page: 33 Ecological-Figure 20: Larger scale comparison of NDVI and Non-NDVI classification results.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1650 x 1275

Description: Page: 42 NAWCA-Photo 1: Toppenish Creek restored wetland feeder channel – Old Goldendale Road Wildlife Area Historic house in the background.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1198 x 898

Description: Page: 46 NAWCA-Photo 2: Overall view of the second phase of the NAWCA project on WDFW property.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1199 x 1648

Description: Page: 47 NAWCA-Photo 3: This is the lower end of Bridgeman Pond, where the culvert crosses under McGee Road, and into Morgan Lake. Beaver activity was high, in spite of passive flow.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1067 x 799

Description: Page: 48 NAWCA-Photo 4: New beaver deceiver in place.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1000 x 747

Description: Page: 48 NAWCA-Photo 5: This historic delivery ditch, leading from Morgan Lake, was cleaned to its original elevation and a new water control structure was installed (foreground).

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 974 x 729

Description: Page: 49 NAWCA-Photo 6: Increased flow through the new control structure, at the upper end of the Johnson wetland.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1000 x 747

Description: Page: 50 NAWCA-Photo 7: Looking east, from the upper end of the new Johnson wetland, prior to filling with water. The site will be excavated to a controlled depth in 2010, and then watered up to create the moist soil management unit.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1191 x 891

Description: Page: 51 NAWCA-Photo 8: One of many ephemeral ponds filled by the City of Grandview’s Water Treatment Facility.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1197 x 631

Description: Page: 53 NAWCA-Photo 9: Grade Control Structure in Toppenish Creek.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1090 x 818

Description: Page: 53 NAWCA-Photo 10: Spillways at lower portion of restored wetland.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1090 x 817

Description: Page: 54 NAWCA-Photo 11: Water Control Structures soon after installation.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1112 x 834

Description: Page: 54 NAWCA-Photo 11: Control Structures operating at high water to pass fish.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1113 x 835

Description: Page: 55 NAWCA-Photo 12: Partially-flooded restored wetland.

Project(s): 1992-062-00

Document: P113830

Dimensions: 1129 x 846


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $1,949,443 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Yakama Tribe (YN) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022
FY2024 Expense $1,998,179 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Yakama Tribe (YN) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022
FY2025 Expense $2,048,134 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Yakama Tribe (YN) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2023 (Draft)
2022 $822,636 31%
2021 $59,515 3%
2020 $299,372 14%
2019 $290,870 13%
2018 $141,089 7%
2017 $138,470 7%
2016 $94,271 5%
2015 $97,000 6%
2014 $20,000 1%
2013 $476,267 21%
2012 $178,600 8%
2011 $320,600 18%
2010 $614,700 31%
2009 $1,183,184 51%
2008 $795,026 34%
2007 $2,204,227 74%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-011480 Bonneville Power Administration FY93 Land Acquisitions Active $488,270 10/1/1992 - 9/30/1993
BPA-011402 Bonneville Power Administration FY95 Acquisitions Active $825,000 10/1/1994 - 9/30/1995
BPA-011483 Bonneville Power Administration FY96 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/1995 - 9/30/1996
BPA-011479 Bonneville Power Administration FY98 Land Acquisitions Active $272,854 10/1/1997 - 9/30/1998
297 REL 1 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION History $0 5/21/2000 - 9/30/2001
9018 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION History $3,947,830 10/1/2000 - 3/31/2004
BPA-011482 Bonneville Power Administration FY01 Land Acquisitions Active $230,219 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
BPA-011478 Bonneville Power Administration FY02 Land Acquisitions Active $219,850 10/1/2001 - 9/30/2002
BPA-011477 Bonneville Power Administration FY04 Land Acquisitions Active $128,182 10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004
17433 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION History $1,384,448 4/1/2004 - 3/31/2005
BPA-011481 Bonneville Power Administration FY05 Land Acquisitions Active $436,800 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
23505 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQ History $1,186,390 4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006
28163 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQ History $1,514,545 4/1/2006 - 3/31/2007
BPA-011484 Bonneville Power Administration FY07 Land Acquisition Active $0 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
32924 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY HABITAT UNIT ACQUISITION Closed $750,000 4/1/2007 - 3/31/2008
37633 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN/W Closed $1,514,545 4/1/2008 - 3/31/2009
42837 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN/W Closed $1,135,545 4/1/2009 - 3/31/2010
BPA-004431 Bonneville Power Administration TBL support for Land acquisitions Active $8,254 4/1/2009 - 9/30/2009
BPA-005056 Bonneville Power Administration FY10 TBL Land Acq Support for Lower Yakima Vly Riparian Wetlands Restoration Active $7,709 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
48417 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN/W Closed $1,370,409 4/1/2010 - 3/31/2011
BPA-005424 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Land Support Active $297 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
53251 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN/W Closed $1,421,052 4/1/2011 - 3/31/2012
BPA-006206 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Land Acquisition Support for Lower Yakima Valley Active $674 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
56662 REL 1 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN/W Closed $2,130,745 4/1/2012 - 5/31/2022
BPA-006855 Bonneville Power Administration Lower Yakima Valley Active $0 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
56662 REL 24 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN Closed $1,785,867 4/1/2013 - 3/31/2014
BPA-007582 Bonneville Power Administration Lower Yakima Valley Active $0 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
56662 REL 60 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN Closed $1,787,195 4/1/2014 - 3/31/2015
56662 REL 83 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN Closed $1,608,339 4/1/2015 - 3/31/2016
56662 REL 104 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Closed $1,910,562 4/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
56662 REL 130 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Closed $1,743,381 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018
56662 REL 159 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Closed $1,692,538 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
81732 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Closed $1,956,504 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
56662 REL 209 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Issued $1,436,467 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2021
56662 REL 236 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Issued $1,628,393 4/1/2021 - 3/31/2022
56662 REL 260 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Issued $1,598,681 4/1/2022 - 3/31/2023
56662 REL 282 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Issued $1,844,461 4/1/2023 - 3/31/2024
CR-368401 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Pending $1,998,179 4/1/2024 - 3/31/2025



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):40
Completed:9
On time:9
Status Reports
Completed:71
On time:14
Avg Days Late:51

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-11480 FY93 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/1992 09/30/1993 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11402 FY95 Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/1994 09/30/1995 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11479 FY98 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/1997 09/30/1998 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11482 FY01 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2000 09/30/2001 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9018 17433, 23505, 28163, 32924, 37633, 42837, 48417, 53251, 56662 REL 1, 56662 REL 24, 56662 REL 60, 56662 REL 83, 56662 REL 104, 56662 REL 130, 56662 REL 159, 81732, 56662 REL 209, 56662 REL 236, 56662 REL 260, 56662 REL 282, CR-368401 1992-062-00 EXP LOWER YAKIMA VALLEY RIPARIAN WETLANDS REST. Yakama Confederated Tribes 10/01/2000 03/31/2025 Pending 71 311 28 7 113 459 73.86% 10
BPA-11478 FY02 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2001 09/30/2002 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11477 FY04 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2003 09/30/2004 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11481 FY05 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2004 09/30/2005 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11484 FY07 Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2006 09/30/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-4431 TBL support for Land acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 04/01/2009 09/30/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-5056 FY10 TBL Land Acq Support for Lower Yakima Vly Riparian Wetlands Restoration Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2009 09/30/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-5424 TBL Land Support Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2010 09/30/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6206 TBL Land Acquisition Support for Lower Yakima Valley Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6855 Lower Yakima Valley Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7582 Lower Yakima Valley Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2013 09/30/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 71 311 28 7 113 459 73.86% 10


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to address condition #1 (objectives) and #3 (prioritization) in project documentation, and to consider other conditions and address if appropriate. See Policy Issue I.a.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-ISRP-20230316
Project: 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 3/16/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The proponents are to be commended for submitting a concise, easy-to-understand proposal. The primary goal of the Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration Project is to permanently protect 27,000 acres of on-reservation floodplain lands along Toppenish and Status creeks and along the lower Yakima River, primarily for wildlife benefits. To date, 21,630 acres (80%) have been protected through land purchase or lease agreements. However, it was not clear if the goal of 27,000 acres of floodplain habitat is still logistically reasonable or sufficient. Other project goals involve habitat restoration and wildlife monitoring.

Although the project seems to be highly successful in terms of protecting 21,630 acres of floodplain habitat, it is not clear how land was prioritized for this protection or what percentage of the total floodplain habitat this represents. But the proponent clearly described what they do and how they do it. The proposal includes an excellent discussion of how they implement their projects.

Goals of the project are presented and have not changed since the last review in 2013. A set of SMART Objectives should be developed for the project. To qualify as SMART Objectives, the proponent should include specific targets per year of the project (e.g., acres of riparian plantings, number, and extent of surveys) and should be accompanied by implementation objectives that describe the intended activities, followed by a description of the appropriate methods to be used under each Implementation Objective. In that most of the information already exists in the proposal, this reorganization is not expected to take a large amount of time.

A list of projects to be completed under this funding cycle is provided in a table. There is no formal project adjustment process for restoration projects, rather the project seems to rely upon experience of the staff to make decisions about project selection and restoration approaches. The lack of a formal adjustment process seems to reflect the project target of simply achieving a net increase in habitat value. 

This project mostly meets scientific review criteria, but additional information needs to be provided in a subsequent annual report to satisfy science integrity requirements and to ensure that this project is based on sound scientific principles. The focus of the project is clearly shifting, from land acquisition to land management. So too must the objectives, methods, and monitoring change to adequately depict the new directions that this project is undertaking.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans. Because of the importance of the proposal as a guiding document for the project, we encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to reflect these additions, but the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

  1. SMART objectives. The proponent should develop a complete set of SMART (see proposal instructions) objectives for this project and incorporate and submit them in a revised proposal, which will provide complete project documentation for future reference on reporting project progress. Based on the overall quality of the proposal and the project’s track record, the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.
  2. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Yakima Basin Habitat Project (199705100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Yakima River basin. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.
  3. Project prioritization. Develop and follow formal project prioritization criteria and project selection methodology. These criteria and methods should help maximize efficiency of actions.
  4. Benefits for fish and wildlife. Identify benefits for fish, wildlife, ecological function, and cultural aspects. These benefits should be quantified as much as possible. This will require a definitive monitoring effort that is robust enough to track progress on an annual basis. The relevant fish monitoring may largely be satisfied by coordination with monitoring efforts already being done by other Yakima subbasin projects (e.g., 199506325 and 199603501). 

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The primary goal of the Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration Project is to permanently protect 27,000 acres of on-reservation floodplain lands along the Yakima River, and along Toppenish and Satus creeks. The project also seeks to monitor, adaptively manage, and enhance those lands to realize a net increase in native fish and wildlife habitat values. Another key criterion for project success is that the properties acquired and managed are accessible to Yakama Nation tribal members for traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering practices, and that healthy populations of culturally important species are maintained.

Goals of the project are presented and have not changed since the last review in 2013. No timeline for achieving the primary goal of protecting 27,000 acres is mentioned, though achievement would primarily depend on funding. Other objectives are noted, such as a net increase in habitat values, but the amount of increase was not specified, suggesting a vague low target.

The proposal needs SMART objectives. The information is largely presented in a table, but the use of SMART objective format will help organize the material and help with tracking progress on an annual basis. The SMART objectives should be explicit about targets and desired outcomes for each of the next five years.

Q2: Methods

The operations and activities proposed for this project fall into three categories: acquisition, restoration/enhancement, and management. The proponent states that "Acquisition activities occur when new properties are purchased or leased, and when existing property leases are renewed." The approach for prioritizing areas to purchase or lease is not described, other than stating: "This land is selected for its high value to fish and wildlife populations.” The last two categories are not mutually exclusive, as restoration actions may require new management practices for continued benefit. The methods are generally well described, but the methods need to be organized within SMART objectives (see above). Metrics and targets need to be developed and presented. The timeline and schedules lack the detail necessary to assess progress towards targets.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

A formal adaptive management and project adjustment process is not described. While a description of how projects are reviewed suggests that internal and external review have been an integral part of the process, the review process appears to have a loose and optional structure rather than a formal, structured review process. As is, the decision as to when more extensive internal or external review is conducted is not clear.

The project has a systematic approach to compliance monitoring based on aerial photos, habitat cover, and bird density. The project’s 2007 proposal indicated that a website would be available that will include all monitoring relevant to their project (mostly project compliance monitoring). The ISRP could not find any information about such a website in this proposal or recent annual reports. It is not clear if any fish or wildlife monitoring, regardless of who conducts it, is available on a Yakama Nation website.

Project monitoring work has focused on both clarifying the outcomes of specific projects and on long-term trend monitoring for wildlife populations. The former is accomplished using photopoint surveys and vegetation monitoring, as well as taking individual counts and qualitative notes at planted sites. Pre-and post-project monitoring reportedly takes place. The proposal states "During the implementation phase, wildlife program staff are on hand both to ensure that the project design and environmental protection measures are followed, and to observe which design components are easy to implement and which may require adjustment."

Habitat restoration activities are monitored on selected projects using standard vegetation monitoring techniques (transect/quadrat surveys, etc.). Baseline surveys take place prior to implementation, with follow-up monitoring after restoration activities to document and evaluate their effects. Other monitoring work has included groundwater hydrology surveys undertaken by a collaborating graduate student from Central Washington University, and periodic surveys for rare plant species.

Wildlife monitoring for the project includes waterfowl, sage grouse, upland game birds, and non-game birds. Waterfowl banding activities are conducted during the summer by trained personnel to determine survival rates and migration areas for locally produced ducks. Migration and wintering surveys are conducted using fixed-wing aircraft monthly from October through February. Counts of sage grouse, upland game birds, and non-game birds are conducted seasonally. Hunter effort and success surveys are conducted during hunting seasons, which helps to gauge both use and population levels for waterfowl and upland game birds. However, the relationship of these monitoring efforts to the project acquisition and restoration efforts is not so direct, for they generally appear to be designed to serve a broader purpose (e.g., information for a public hunting program).

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Overall, this project has done an admirable job providing a significant amount of conservation. The main benefits are conservation of land and preservation of cultural traditions. Cultural benefits include providing habitat for native plants used for basketry and first-foods harvesting. Tribal access for traditional cultural activity is an important part of this project.

To date, the Yakama Nation has used Project funding to protect 21,630 acres of habitat (goal is 27,000 acres), including 4,530 acres of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands, through a combination of land purchases and long-term leases. The YN Wildlife program has completed numerous enhancement projects on its properties, to restore them to a natural state or to enable flexible and impactful management options in areas where larger trends (e.g., Yakima River flow regulation) prevent a return to a truly natural condition. Project funding has been used for many of these activities, typically combined with other funding sources. Restoration actions have ranged from small riparian plantings, to reconnecting long side channels, to large water control infrastructure projects.

Benefits to wildlife such as waterfowl are likely, but the benefits to fish are less clear. While the actual monitoring of Middle Columbia steelhead “is ‘outsourced’ to cooperating organizations such as YN Fisheries,” the information collected is not presented by the proponent. The monitoring information should be used by the proponent to help track the usefulness and progress of the project. The information should also provide a feedback loop for future adaptive changes in the project approach.

Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1992-062-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1992-062-00
Completed Date: 9/26/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The response was helpful in better framing objectives and deliverables in quantitative terms, while appropriately pointing out the inherent constraints and the need for flexibility. Additional material was provided that also helped clarify other aspects of the project. The physical setting was more completely described.

The response describes the need to lease rather than purchase land for protection. Reviewers do not completely understand the dispute the sponsors have with BPA over land easements and whether or not this continues to constrain progress. Hopefully the issue can be resolved so that key habitat can be protected.

Evaluation of Results

This project works in the floodplains of the Yakima River from Union Gap to Mabton (the “Wapato Reach” and areas below) and the lower elevation areas (below 2,000 feet) of Toppenish and Satus Creeks, to preserve and restore Reservation lands as mitigation for hydrosystem impacts. Since its inception in 1991, over 20,000 acres of floodplain lands have been protected through purchase or lease. These lands include 75 main channel stream miles (117 miles of stream bank), 4,000 acres of National Wetland Inventory wetlands, and 1,400 acres of riparian forest. The program has also, since 2007, restored or enhanced over 25 miles of main and side channels, and over 1400 acres of wetlands.

The sponsors are in the process of compiling a history of project actions, including maps of project locations, to be finished by October 2013.

First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

A response is needed that identifies quantitative objectives and deliverables to the greatest extent possible. Deliverables should also include project reports that document progress.

A number of other comments found below are intended as feedback to aide future proposal preparation.

The proposal mentions a dispute with BPA over land easements. The ISRP notes that it is important that this dispute be resolved so that conservation efforts can continue to expand.

Because one of the objectives of the work is to provide natural resources for Yakama members, documentation of progress toward this end should be included in future proposals. Progress could take many different forms such as documentation of plants and animals used, measures of use such as resource use days, or as culturally appropriate, map the distribution of culturally valuable resources that are reappearing due to their management actions. When the ISRP visited the Zimmermann Tract, our hosts gave a demonstration of wapato harvesting and were very pleased that this plant had appeared in the Tract.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The significance of the project to regional programs is adequately described. The ISRP appreciates when objectives and deliverables are presented quantitatively, for example secure 1,000 to 3,000 acres of floodplain habitat per year. However, some objectives were not quantitative, for example amount of habitat restored.

The goals of this project are to permanently protect 27,000 acres of floodplain lands along the Yakima River, Toppenish, and Satus Creeks within the agricultural portion of the Yakama Reservation, to enhance those lands to realize a net increase in native fish and wildlife habitat values, to adaptively manage those lands to ensure permanent fish and wildlife value, and to monitor the habitat conditions to ensure the desired habitat value is reached and maintained.

A description of the physical setting would have been helpful, including a map and brief overviews covering physical setting and land ownership.

It is noted that while steelhead spawn mostly in Toppenish Creek reaches above the project area, much spawning occurs in Satus Creek within the project area. The project area is especially important for winter rearing. Approximately 66% of the subbasin’s juvenile steelhead typically enter the project area in December-January each year and do not migrate downstream until the spring. Future reports should discuss how project efforts protect or enhance that winter rearing habitat.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

It is noted that 21,000 acres of the 27,000 acre floodplain goal has been achieved, but 18,600 of these acres are leased. Reviewers are uncertain whether leased lands are fully protected in perpetuity, as suggested. The proposal mentions a dispute with BPA over land easements. The ISRP notes that it is important that this dispute be resolved so that successful conservation efforts can continue to expand.

The proposal notes that it is behind schedule in annual reports. The report for 2009 is 75% complete and the 2010 report is 30% complete. The proposal states that sponsors will improve the amount of timely reporting.

The project monitors its habitat acquisitions. Some information is reportedly presented on the webpage, which will be reportedly updated in FY 2013 but it is not clear when in FY 2013 the update will occur. The last report to integrate population monitoring with habitat restoration actions was completed in FY 1999 (Millspaugh and Skalski 1999). More effort is needed to document acquisitions and monitoring results. Monitoring plans, management plans, and habitat surveys are specific deliverables but reviewers did not see references to documents that have been produced, so it is difficult to evaluate what has been accomplished in addition to stated overall land acquisitions.

A map is needed as well as photos of selected sites. During our visit, the tour hosts referenced using photo plots to record changes occurring on Project lands. We encourage this as a basic monitoring activity. Also missing was a description of locations of activities to determine whether they scattered or clumped. Better discussion of geographical specifics would have been helpful.

Prioritization of land acquisition was briefly described in the proposal and should be presented in more detail in future proposals. There is evidence of good partnering with USFWS, NRCS, and conservation groups.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A number of deliverables are listed. Many of these imply that a report would be produced, for example complete a wildlife survey and a complete management plan for new land. A key deliverable should be brief reports that document the activity given that the budgets for these efforts seem to be quite robust.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

A number of references are cited for habitat monitoring methods at MonitoringMethods.org. It is not clear to what extent these specific methodologies are actually used because a recent report on monitoring was not readily available.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:45:35 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund Pending Available Funds
Comments: Tier 2. Fund at a level consistent with ISRP comment during contracting when funds become available.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1992-062-00 - Lower Yakima Valley Riparian Wetlands Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is an important project working toward habitat conservation goals in some critical areas of the Yakima basin. Missing from the proposal was evidence of a strong biological monitoring component. The proposal stated that their website will be updated in FY 07 to include all the biological monitoring results, but reviewers requested an interim synthesis to show benefits to focal species and demonstrate restoration is working.

The proponents have gone to a lot of effort to provide a detailed response. The response effectively provided detail on M&E procedure and results of management activities on one management unit encompassing 440 acres (of a total of 20,000 acres in the project). The monitoring protocol described is that used on all management units. Impressive changes were shown in the time-series of aerial photos, photopoints, habitat cover type data, and bird density/diversity summaries. Those M&E methods seem appropriate and the data resulting indicates the project is achieving its wetland-related goals. If this is representative of what has been done and is planned for other management units, this portion of project could serve as a model for riparian/wetlands restoration.

Unfortunately only one table gave data on fish use of the restored habitat. On the other hand only one goal is directly concerned with anadromous fish. The Yakama Nation Fisheries Program has a fish-monitoring program underway, and it would be in the proponent's best interest to include more fisheries information, although reviewers appreciate there are often indirect (but important) ties to fish that can be assessed using habitat measures. They are encouraged include more fisheries information for their next submission.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1992-062-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration, RM&E, coordination activities; need confirmation that screening or other criteria to ensure BPA is not funding activities others already required to perform; need confirmation that cost share is adequate.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-062-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1992-062-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Kenneth Raedeke Interested Party <Known but not in list>
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Michael Milstein (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Michelle O'Malley Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Catherine Clark Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Bridger Cohan Interested Party Yakama Confederated Tribes
Laurel James Supervisor Yakama Confederated Tribes
Emma Olney Project Lead Yakama Confederated Tribes