Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
Project Number:
1996-035-01
Title:
Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
Summary:
The Satus, Toppenish and Ahtanum watersheds are home to approximately half the total spawning abundance—and two of the four distinct populations—of Yakima Subbasin steelhead. Currently, these watersheds are habitat limited for a variety of reasons.
As in other areas in the Columbia River basin, anadromous fish stocks have declined drastically in these three Yakima River tributaries. Some estimates place the adult steelhead returns to the Yakima Subbasin at ten percent of historical levels (Yakima Subbasin Plan Supplement, p. 8). In March 1999, Middle Columbia River steelhead were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The importance and cultural significance of steelhead to the Yakama Nation, their status as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and the critical role of Yakama Reservation steelhead populations in steelhead recovery are our rationale for making steelhead the primary focal species of the Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project (YRWP).
Stream channel, floodplain and vegetation restoration projects addressing habitat related limiting factors (i.e., flow, key habitat quantity, habitat diversity, temperature, sediment load, channel stability) that were identified in the Yakima Subbasin Plan Supplement (pp. 11-13) form the core of our project. Indeed, this project and the complementary Yakama Nation Riparian/Wetlands Restoration Project (199206200) are the only comprehensive vehicles for recovering two of the four steelhead populations in the Yakima Major Population Grouping. The ultimate goal of the project is to restore the natural hydrologic function of the watersheds as much as possible without causing an overwhelming burden to economic interests (i.e., timber harvest, agriculture) on the reservation. This in turn will increase steelhead spawning success and juvenile survival to outmigration. In addition to steelhead, restoration work will likely benefit other anadromous and resident fish species (e.g., coho salmon, chinook salmon, bull trout, and westslope cutthroat trout) and many wildlife species as well.
The YRWP conducts comprehensive watershed restoration activities including (1) headwater wetland rehabilitation; (2) adult and juvenile fish passage restoration; (3) stream channel and riparian area restoration including bringing stream channels back to grade, reconnecting side channels and floodplains, planting native vegetation in conjunction with riparian and range fencing; (4) minimum instream flow implementation and modification of irrigation water sources and uses; along with (5) physical monitoring that includes precipitation, groundwater, discharge from streams, canals and drains, temperature, water quality, fish habitat structure and quality according to accepted protocols; and (6) biological monitoring including spawning ground surveys, snorkel surveys and smolt trapping.
An adaptive approach has characterized our practice of watershed management. The need to face hard facts of science, law and economics, and to gain the trust of landowners and other resource managers have dictated a flexible, opportunistic and incremental approach to solving resource problems. We now have solid advances in managing all three watersheds, and indications from redd, parr and smolt counts that local steelhead populations are responding despite some unfavorable climatic conditions. The listing of steelhead and bull trout provided needed impetus to our efforts, while the environment for seeking change has continued to improve since listing as our skill and credibility have increased. Without this project in place, the recovery goals set out in the Yakima Subbasin Plan and Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan cannot be realized.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Yakama Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1997
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
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Location of rotary screw traps operated by YRWP in Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum Creeks on the lower Yakima River.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 4

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Snorkel site locations in the Toppenish Watershed.

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 14

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Snorkel site locations in the Satus Watershed.

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 16

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Locations of temperature monitoring stations established between 1997 and 2008 in the Yakima River watershed portion of the Yakama Reservation.

Figure Name: Figure 10

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 24

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

The beginning and end points for steelhead survey reaches in Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 11

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 31

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of Steelhead Redd in Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Ahtanum Creek, and Marion Drain 2001 to 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 12

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 31

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of YRWP 2011 restoration projects.

Figure Name: Figure 16

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 40

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Camas patch meadow located left of picture and road that is widening and channelizing the meadows hydrology.

Figure Name: Figure 17

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 41

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Camas patch road that was closed (red) and the old logging road that was developed (blue) to provide alternate access into and around the meadow.

Figure Name: Figure 18

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 42

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Road closure and road development of alternate route. Also note vehicle exclosure fence to prevent continued use of closed road.

Figure Name: Figure 19

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 43

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Revegetation of the decommission road surface.

Figure Name: Figure 20

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 43

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Armored rock ford in place of culvert.

Figure Name: Figure 21

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 44

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of restoration actions on Panther Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 22

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 45

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Lower end of wet meadow located at the Fort Simcoe Road #80 crossing.

Figure Name: Figure 23

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 46

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 1. Outfall of the culvert on the Rd. 80 crossing of Panther Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 24

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 47

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 1. Armored rock ford replacing culvert on Rd. 80 crossing.

Figure Name: Figure 25

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 47

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 2. Outfall of double culvert configuration at lower Panther Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 26

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 48

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 2. Armored rock ford replacing culvert on lower Panther Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 27

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 49

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of Durham Dam on Toppenish Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 28

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 50

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Obsolete Irrigation Diversion (Durham Dam) located on Toppenish Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 29

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 50

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Failed coffer dam attempt using bulk bags.

Figure Name: Figure 30

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 51

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Failed coffer dam attempt using bulk bags.

Figure Name: Figure 31

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 52

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Bank stabilization and floodplain restoration project in and adjacent to Ahtanum Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 32

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 53

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site #2 during construction.

Figure Name: Figure 33

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 54

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site #1 post construction.

Figure Name: Figure 34

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 55

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site #2 post construction.

Figure Name: Figure 35

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 55

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site # 3 post construction.

Figure Name: Figure 36

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 55

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Excavated floodplain, floodplain wood, & backwater #2.

Figure Name: Figure 37

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 56

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Constructed swale to convey overland flow.

Figure Name: Figure 38

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 56

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Backwater #1: displaying re-vegetation, woody debris and erosion control measures.

Figure Name: Figure 39

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 57

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Sophomore LaSalle High School Science students learning about the project from contracted hydraulic engineer.

Figure Name: Figure 40

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 58

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Example from site of re-vegetation efforts.

Figure Name: Figure 41

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 58

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Upper Toppenish Creek Reach Assessment: 8.9 miles from the Olney Lateral Diversion to Shaker Church Road.

Figure Name: Figure 42

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 60

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Habitat survey assessing reach conditions.

Figure Name: Figure 43

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 61

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Unscreened surface water diversion is located on South Fork Simcoe Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 44

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 62

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

The Feeder Ditch is located on right looking downstream. Sandbagging at the diversion point is to maintain minimum in stream flow.

Figure Name: Figure 45

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 63

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Stock pump and watering trough.

Figure Name: Figure 46

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 64

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of rotary screw traps operated by YRWP in Satus, Toppenish, and Ahtanum Creeks on the lower Yakima River.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 4

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Snorkel site locations in the Toppenish Watershed.

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 14

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Snorkel site locations in the Satus Watershed.

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 16

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Locations of temperature monitoring stations established between 1997 and 2008 in the Yakima River watershed portion of the Yakama Reservation.

Figure Name: Figure 10

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 24

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of Steelhead Redd in Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, Ahtanum Creek, and Marion Drain 2001 to 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 12

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 31

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of YRWP 2011 restoration projects.

Figure Name: Figure 16

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 40

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Camas patch meadow located left of picture and road that is widening and channelizing the meadows hydrology.

Figure Name: Figure 17

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 41

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Camas patch road that was closed (red) and the old logging road that was developed (blue) to provide alternate access into and around the meadow.

Figure Name: Figure 18

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 42

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Road closure and road development of alternate route. Also note vehicle exclosure fence to prevent continued use of closed road.

Figure Name: Figure 19

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 43

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Revegetation of the decommission road surface.

Figure Name: Figure 20

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 43

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Armored rock ford in place of culvert.

Figure Name: Figure 21

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 44

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of restoration actions on Panther Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 22

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 45

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Lower end of wet meadow located at the Fort Simcoe Road #80 crossing

Figure Name: Figure 23

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 46

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 1. Outfall of the culvert on the Rd. 80 crossing of Panther Creek

Figure Name: Figure 24

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 47

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 1. Armored rock ford replacing culvert on Rd. 80 crossing

Figure Name: Figure 25

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 47

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 2. Outfall of double culvert configuration at lower Panther Creek

Figure Name: Figure 26

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 48

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Culvert # 2. Armored rock ford replacing culvert on lower Panther Creek

Figure Name: Figure 27

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 49

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Location of Durham Dam on Toppenish Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 28

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 50

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Obsolete Irrigation Diversion (Durham Dam) located on Toppenish Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 29

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 50

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Failed coffer dam attempt using bulk bags.

Figure Name: Figure 30

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 51

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Failed coffer dam attempt using bulk bags.

Figure Name: Figure 31

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 52

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Bank stabilization and floodplain restoration project in and adjacent to Ahtanum Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 32

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 53

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site #2 during construction.

Figure Name: Figure 33

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 54

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site #1 post construction.

Figure Name: Figure 34

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 55

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site #2 post construction.

Figure Name: Figure 35

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 55

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Site # 3 post construction.

Figure Name: Figure 36

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 55

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Excavated floodplain, floodplain wood, & backwater #2.

Figure Name: Figure 37

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 56

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Constructed swale to convey overland flow.

Figure Name: Figure 38

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 56

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Backwater #1: displaying re-vegetation, woody debris and erosion control measures.

Figure Name: Figure 39

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 57

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Sophomore LaSalle High School Science students learning about the project from contracted hydraulic engineer.

Figure Name: Figure 40

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 58

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Example from site of re-vegetation efforts.

Figure Name: Figure 41

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 58

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Upper Toppenish Creek Reach Assessment: 8.9 miles from the Olney Lateral Diversion to Shaker Church Road.

Figure Name: Figure 42

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 60

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Habitat survey assessing reach conditions.

Figure Name: Figure 43

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 61

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Unscreened surface water diversion is located on South Fork Simcoe Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 44

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 62

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

The Feeder Ditch is located on right looking downstream. Sandbagging at the diversion point is to maintain minimum in stream flow.

Figure Name: Figure 45

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 63

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386

Stock pump and watering trough.

Figure Name: Figure 46

Document ID: P125370

Document: Yakama Reservation Watershed Project; 3/11 - 2/12

Page Number: 64

Project: 1996-035-01

Contract: 52386


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $1,582,300 $1,582,300 $1,580,269 $1,580,269 $1,132,526

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $1,323,744 $1,322,045 $1,322,045 $947,465
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $258,556 $258,224 $258,224 $185,061
FY2019 (Current) $1,543,290 $1,538,067 $1,538,067 $1,492,903

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $1,284,032 $1,279,686 $1,279,686 $1,242,110
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $258,556 $257,681 $257,681 $250,114
General - Within Year $702 $700 $700 $679
FY2020 (Next) $1,542,588 $1,542,588 $253,333 $253,333 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $1,284,032 $210,871 $210,871 $0
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $258,556 $42,462 $42,462 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Jul-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $1,323,744 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $258,556 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017
FY2019 Expense $1,284,032 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2019 Expense $702 From: General - Within Year PIT Tag Readers 12/20/2018
FY2019 Expense $258,556 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Jan 2nd FY19 01/02/2019
FY2020 Expense $1,284,032 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $258,556 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
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
2014 (Draft)
2013
2012 $150,000 10 %
2011
2010
2009 $105,000 10 %
2008 $90,000 8 %
2007 $84,492 8 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, 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
6311 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 STATUS CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT History $622,054 6/1/1996 - 9/30/2003
305 REL 1 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-00 YIN WATERSHED RESTORATION Terminated $472,353 6/1/2000 - 8/31/2001
15279 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes PI 199603501 SATUS CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT History $333,397 10/1/2003 - 9/30/2004
19982 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 SATUS CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT History $378,580 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
25127 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHEDS PROJECT History $997,085 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
31090 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHEDS PROJECT History $650,000 2/1/2007 - 9/30/2007
BPA-005251 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Yakama Reservation Watershed Active $6,885 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005715 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project Active $6,885 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006356 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project Active $6,120 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006994 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Yakima Reservation Watershed Active $6,029 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-008389 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Yakima Reservation Watershed Active $6,069 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
56662 REL 84 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP TOPP CK BIOP RME Issued $245,905 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
BPA-008914 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Yakima Reservation Watershed FY 16 Active $6,163 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
56662 REL 127 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHED PROJECT Issued $1,024,036 3/1/2017 - 2/28/2018
56662 REL 139 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP TOPP CK BIOP RME Issued $245,905 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
BPA-010362 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Biop M&E Toppenish Creek Active $6,191 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
56662 REL 152 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHED PROJECT Issued $1,323,744 3/1/2018 - 2/28/2019
56662 REL 166 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHED PROJECT TOPPENISH CR Issued $250,334 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
BPA-010801 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags/Readers - Biop M&E Toppenish Creek Active $702 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
56662 REL 178 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHED PROJECT Issued $1,284,032 3/1/2019 - 2/29/2020
56662 REL 192 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHED PROJECT Signature $253,333 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
CR-336099 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1996-035-01 EXP YAKAMA RESERVATION WATERSHED PROJECT Pending $253,333 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):26
Completed:24
On time:24
Status Reports
Completed:92
On time:29
Avg Days Late:15

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
6311 15279, 19982, 25127, 30541, 31090, 35636, 40083, 44614, 52386, 57335, 56662 REL 15, 56662 REL 50, 56662 REL 77, 56662 REL 99, 56662 REL 127, 56662 REL 152, 56662 REL 178 1996-035-01 STATUS CREEK WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT Yakama Confederated Tribes 06/1996 06/1996 Issued 56 381 19 0 25 425 94.12% 20
BPA-005251 PIT Tags - Yakama Reservation Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48418 56662 REL 6, 56662 REL 25, 56662 REL 64, 56662 REL 84, 56662 REL 113, 56662 REL 139, 56662 REL 166, 56662 REL 192 1996-035-01 EXP BIOP M&E TOPPENISH CREEK Yakama Confederated Tribes 07/2010 07/2010 Signature 36 86 2 0 2 90 97.78% 0
BPA-005715 PIT Tags - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006356 PIT Tags - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006994 PIT Tags - Yakima Reservation Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008389 PIT Tags - Yakima Reservation Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008914 PIT Tags - Yakima Reservation Watershed FY 16 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010362 PIT Tags - Biop M&E Toppenish Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010801 PIT Tags/Readers - Biop M&E Toppenish Creek Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 92 467 21 0 27 515 94.76% 20


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: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1996-035-01
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1996-035-01
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 sponsor provided reasonably detailed responses to each of our seven concerns. This material contains valuable supplemental information about the project.

The efforts made to better quantify both objectives and deliverables were helpful. Particularly important were the descriptions and before/after photo series of selected recent activities. The prioritization protocol was effectively described.

Reviewers found the explanation of timber harvest processes used by the Yakama Nation helpful. More details about the timeline for certification under the Sustainable Forest Initiative would have been welcomed but was not requested. Clarification was provided regarding the extent to which project streams are supplemented with hatchery origin fish. It was also noted that no projects are currently planned for fish habitat in and along the mainstem Yakima River near the three tributary confluences.

Evaluation of Results

The proposal contains a detailed description of past and ongoing efforts to restore and protect Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, and Ahtanum Creek, the three primary Yakima River tributaries on the Yakama Reservation. Work is laid out in a chronologic summary for each tributary, giving an account of the problem, the approach taken, and the activities completed to remedy the problem. There is a great deal of information included, and it shows considerable effort. Evaluation of results could be strengthened by including an account of the survival rates of the various vegetative plantings and including key metrics from the steelhead monitoring conducted by others.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 3:14:53 PM.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This is a proposal that shows considerable effort, but improvement is needed in several important areas. A response is requested to address the following:

1) The objectives and deliverables are reasonable, but many should be quantified so that reviewers and the Council have a better idea of what may be accomplished. For example, how many historical channel networks will be restored during the project period (Objective 3, Deliverable 7), how many miles of fencing will be installed (Objective 4, Deliverable 11), how many stream banks will be stabilized (Objective 5, Deliverable 8), how many acres of headwater areas will be restored (Objective 5, Deliverable 9)?

2) This project has a long history and a long list of specific accomplishments was provided, but this information was not synthesized to provide a status update on the restoration effort in the three targeted watersheds. See further comment below. Please include a revised description of accomplishments for the past two years. Also, linkage to other BPA-funded projects was not described in sufficient detail to show that the projects complement rather than duplicate each other. Brief explanations are needed.

3) The proposal mentioned that timber harvests will occur during the next five years. The response should mention how these new timber harvests might adversely impact ongoing restoration activities. What mechanisms are in place to coordinate timber harvest and watershed activities?

4) Prioritization of the project's components is described as "From 2008-present, the pool of projects identified using the Yakima Basin Steelhead Recovery Plan as a guide, were selected for implementation based on a cost-benefit prioritization method which considers biotic, physical and cultural factors." This inadequate description can be rectified by providing details about the biotic, physical, and cultural criteria used in the cost-benefit methods, the source of information used for the criteria, and which group or groups assign priorities using this method.

5) The focus is on geomorphic restoration, but it is not evident that the staff has those skills, as yet. The response should address this issue and, if appropriate, identify solutions such as using consultants or staff from other projects.

6) The proposal did not describe whether the three tributaries in this proposal were being supplemented with hatchery fish. That should be made clear in the response.

7) The new work proposed to "extend the geographic scope of potential restoration work by taking advantage of the best opportunities to protect and restore fish habitat in and along the mainstem Yakima River near the three tributary confluences" is inadequately described and not justified by the proposal. Additional information is requested.

Additional comments and queries are given below as feedback for future efforts and do not need to be addressed in a response.

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

This project has a long history. The description of significance to regional programs is adequate. In the technical background section, the sponsors should have provided more detail on how they prioritized specific habitat projects.

The motivation for this project is to restore ESA-listed steelhead numbers. The proposal would have been stronger if it tied these more specifically and directly to steelhead. To what extent might steelhead productivity have increased in response to past restoration activities? How much more effort is needed to improve steelhead productivity to some measurable amount?

The six objectives, restore hydrologic function, improve passage, restore channels and floodplains, restore riparian communities, restore flow and water quality, and monitor, are reasonable, but quantitative benchmarks should be provided for objectives involving restoration. For example, how many historic channel networks will be restored during the project period (Objective 3, Deliverable 7), how many miles of fencing will be installed (Objective 4, Deliverable 11), how many stream banks will be stabilized (Objective 5, Deliverable 8), how many acres of headwater areas will be restored (Objective 5, Deliverable 9)?

Supplementation of natural salmonids with hatchery stocks is an important activity in the Yakima watershed. The proposal recognizes the need to recover degraded habitat so that natural stocks may become self-sustaining.

The description of the setting of the three streams was helpful but incomplete. Maps are needed. More importantly basic hydrologic information should be included. This is a serious deficiency for a hydrologic-based proposal. What are seasonal and historical flows?

Description of the three streams was weakened by use of general and vague assessments of the systems biological function. More detail and specifics are needed, especially justification of limiting factors.

The sponsors propose to "extend the geographic scope of potential restoration work by taking advantage of the best opportunities to protect and restore fish habitat in and along the mainstem Yakima River near the three tributary confluences. We would limit potential projects to the Yakima River where it forms the Yakama Reservation boundary from the mouth of Ahtanum Creek (mile 107) downstream to the town of Mabton (mile 60). We would focus on right-bank (Reservation-side) habitats that, if protected or restored at moderate cost, are likely to benefit steelhead under the current Yakima River flow regime, which is heavily modified for irrigation water storage and delivery, but could function even better with the mainstem flow restoration measures called for in the Subbasin Plan and Salmon Recovery Plan." This was included in the proposal but not emphasized, not mentioned in the introductory material, not featured as an objective, nor addressed during the site visit.

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

A long list of accomplishments was provided, but it was difficult to evaluate what these mean in terms of restoring habitat for steelhead and salmon in these tributaries and in the overall Yakima basin. The proposal states there have been improvements; it would be beneficial to provide some quantitative information to support these claims. There is no reason to doubt that, over the years, project staff has actively pursued a plethora of restoration actions. But the accomplishments section is not adequate to enable reviewers to assess the success of those results. That is important because they are the best predictor of potential project success. The much-too-lengthy section needs focus on key efforts, with before/after photos and maps. It needs to focus on (a) what was the problem, (b) what were the key indices of success, both physical habitat and hopefully fish, and both short- and long-term. For example if XX numbers of tree were planted then why were they being planted, what fraction survived, and was this successful in solving the problem?

Prioritization of projects components such as, "From 2008-present, the pool of projects identified using the Yakima Basin Steelhead Recovery Plan as a guide, were selected for implementation based on a cost-benefit prioritization method which considers biotic, physical and cultural factors," is inadequate and needs to be described in much more detail.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The introduction mentioned that timber harvests will occur during the next five years. The proposal should mention how these new timber harvests might impact ongoing restoration activities. Are appropriate actions such as riparian buffers being implemented to minimize impacts?

There was no mention of the YN management and database project (1988-120-25), which reportedly coordinates and manages all YN data.

It was not clear how this project integrates or overlaps with project 1995-063-25.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Specific deliverables were identified under each objective. As noted above, the quantitative deliverables should be identified whenever possible so that reviewers know what is targeted for accomplishment during the project period.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Links to MonitoringMethods.org were provided, but there was no detailed discussion of methods in the proposal. Reviewers of some of these methods, on the web page, noted that additional detail is needed. It would have been very useful to also link to a project report that provides detailed monitoring methods, given the long-term nature of this effort. The proposal does reference the use of some basic survey methodologies such as Timber Fish and Wildlife surveys.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:51:47 PM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 3:14:53 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/8/2013)
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-NPCC-20110106
Project: 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1996-035-01
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Programmatic issue #2.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #2 Habitat effectiveness monitoring and evaluation—.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1996-035-01
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification: Justification for this project depends on a favorable review of the overall project, including the habitat restoration component, in the Geographic Categorical Review.

The response addressed many of the deficiencies raised in the initial ISRP review. The proposal makes a clear statement of the objectives of habitat monitoring: "The primary objective is to correlate population performance and changes in population performance to habitat conditions or specified physical attributes (i.e. flow, temperature, wood densities, and habitat types) by integrating the project's biological data with the habitat data." Therefore, the habitat portion of this project is critical to achieving its primary objective. However, the habitat monitoring portion of the proposal is incompletely described. The proponent states that the habitat protocols will be a part of the Geographic Categorical Review. However, the lack of information on the habitat elements of the proposal makes it difficult for the ISRP to comment on the scientific basis for the RM&E activities.

The response does provide an improved description of relationships with numerous regional projects (although it is occasionally vague with respect to what specific information it will provide to those projects). The description of the importance of the Prosser Dam adult steelhead counts to the thresholds in the AMIP was especially helpful. However, some of these relationships with other projects depend on the habitat portion of the study, which, as noted above, is not sufficiently described in the proposal to enable ISRP review. Although this element of the proposal cannot be reviewed at this time, it is an important component in the regional context. In fact, part of the value of this RM&E project component depends upon the establishment of improved estimates of the effect of habitat restoration at a watershed scale on steelhead productivity (smolt/redd). So the outcome of the Geographic Categorical Review is critical to the ultimate success of this project.

The components of the proposal that deal with the monitoring of status and trends of adult and juvenile steelhead demographics in Toppenish, Satus and Ahtanum creeks were more thoroughly described than the habitat elements of the project. The inclusion of adult steelhead abundance data in the response was helpful. It showed how variable the numbers of returning adults were, and how difficult it will be to detect a restoration signature in the face of such high variability. The fish population data will be improved by upgrading redd surveys methods and operation of screw traps. The ISRP appreciates that project proponents are keeping records of other species that are caught in the traps. Long-term changes in the abundance of non-target fishes (particularly introduced species) will be helpful in understanding the effects of restoration activities, climate change, and other important influences. The proposal indicates that the Satus and Ahtanum creek population monitoring data will be used to evaluate several spatial structure and diversity VSP metrics. However, the spatial structure and diversity metrics are not identified. It appears that trap efficiencies, trap operations, and redd count accuracy pose continuing challenges that may benefit from regional information exchange with other practitioners of these methods. A workshop sometime over the next year to discuss these topics should be considered.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP has strongly supported the collection of the type of data that this study would collect: spawner abundance, smolt output, and smolt survival. Data on spawner abundance and smolt output is the foundation for evaluating any program for restoring salmon and steelhead populations. The information that this project could provide would be of great importance to fisheries and habitat managers in the Yakima basin. But the information provided in the proposal about objectives, methods, and work elements was insufficient to enable a technical review.

The proposal needs to be better integrated with other regional programs, or at least the relationship of the project to other programs should be made clearer. The principal goal of the project should be clarified – are the improvements primarily needed to better establish steelhead status and trends, or to track the biological effectiveness of restoration actions taking place in the three streams? In either case more details are needed on how information from the steelhead monitoring work will be used to inform management plans. The project proponents also should provide a much more detailed description of project work elements, including a thorough description of the sampling and analytical methods that will be used to generate estimates of redd and smolt abundance. Finally, the budget portion of the proposal should be completed.

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

There was insufficient information provided in the proposal on objectives and technical background. In fact, the title of the project and its objectives do not clearly match. From the title, the expectation was that objectives would focus on habitat restoration effectiveness monitoring. However, the proposal itself seeks funding to improve data collection on steelhead populations in three tributaries of the Yakima River that are located primarily on Yakama Nation lands. It was also unclear from the proposal whether the goal of improving the steelhead abundance and movement information in these tributaries was primarily to establish long-term trends in the Yakima steelhead MPG or to relate changes in steelhead abundance or movement patterns to habitat restoration actions.

This project has been in place since 1996 and steelhead monitoring on the Yakama Nation Reservation has contributed to knowledge of the species in the Yakima basin as a whole. The proposal was reasonably thorough with regard to the technical background of the steelhead monitoring efforts in Toppenish, Satus, and part of Ahtanum Creeks. It did not give details about habitat restoration actions in these tributaries, nor did it explain how the steelhead monitoring work contributed to knowledge of other fish species of importance in the drainages.

Objective 1 in the proposal was to restore steelhead in the mid-Columbia to harvestable levels, but no additional details were given. In effect, the proposal appeared to be limited to Objective 2, which was to monitor steelhead status and trends. Habitat improvements are not given as an objective; however, 54% of the work was apparently for restoration actions. More information on the restoration component of the project needs to be incorporated into the proposal. In fact, inclusion of this habitat restoration element in the proposal was surprising as the focus of this categorical review is on RME and artificial production rather than habitat restoration.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The history of the project is primarily communicated with a series of tables indicating redd counts, smolt counts, and budgets for this project over the last decade. A discussion of previous monitoring problems (including safety concerns) also was presented. A summary of any conclusions that have emerged from the steelhead studies would have been helpful. For example, have adult abundance estimates indicated any long-term trends in this part of the Yakima subbasin? Have there been shifts in age structure or downstream migration patterns in smolts during the monitoring period? Can the effects of habitat restoration projects be seen in any of the steelhead demographic data?

The section on management changes (adaptive management) needed further detail. Little information is provided regarding how the sampling procedures have evolved through time or how the information collected by this study has been used to inform changes in sampling protocols or fisheries and habitat management decisions. The proposal needs to explain how management changes were implemented as a result of the steelhead monitoring studies.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

There was relatively little discussion of relationships with regional programs or other projects. Aside from explaining how the monitoring studies help in tracking the status and trends of steelhead in the Yakima MPG, the proposal provides relatively few details about how it is linked to habitat restoration projects, supplementation efforts, and work on other anadromous salmonid species in the area. Some mention was made about the application of models and methods for estimating redd abundance being developed by ISEMP in the upper Columbia. However, no description of these models and methods was provided. The Yakima VSP project also was mentioned several times as a potential source of information that could help achieve the objectives of this study. But the nature of the relationship between these two projects was not described.

A list of the identified limiting factors and their perceived importance would have been helpful, as would a discussion of how an improved steelhead monitoring program would help resolve questions about restoration effectiveness.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

As was the case throughout this proposal, insufficient detail was provided to adequately judge the appropriateness of the work elements, methods, and deliverables. The terms “might be done” or “under consideration” were associated with many of work elements, suggesting the incompleteness of the project design.

The “Types of Work” section of the proposal seemed a little misleading. Only 34% of the work elements are for RM&E; the balance is for habitat or planning and coordination. However, the two project deliverables are concerned with improving the steelhead abundance and outmigration data in the three tributaries, with emphasis on Toppenish and Satus Creeks. The budget section of the proposal was apparently not completed, as there are no budget figures given for each of the deliverables and budget detail is provided for only one year (2011).Therefore, there was no easy way of knowing how resources would be allocated within the project.

In general, the work elements are not adequately described. Problems with access to the upper Toppenish watershed in early spring were to be addressed either by plowing roads or using snowmobiles or ATVs. No analysis of which option is likely to be most effective and least costly was provided. It would seem that a relatively complete analysis of this issue could have been generated using a road system map and data on snow levels during early spring. A preliminary plan of this sort also would enable a more realistic estimate of costs associated with this activity. Similarly, a list of potential smolt trap modifications was provided but there was no indication of which of these modifications was likely to be implemented. The proposal should contain specifics about what will be done, what it will accomplish and the cost.

There also was insufficient detail provided for some of the methodologies to be employed in estimating redd and smolt counts. The redd count estimates apparently will attempt to apply models and methods developed by ISEMP for estimating redd abundance in the upper Columbia. These methods should be described in the proposal and data needs for the application of these tools clearly defined.

The description of the mark-recapture methodology for estimating trap efficiency also was incomplete. Apparently, an attempt will be made to develop a relationship between flow and trap efficiency, but no method details for establishing this relationship were provided. There also are a number of other environmental conditions that can influence trap efficiency. A comparison of day and night efficiencies was mentioned in the proposal but, again, no details on how this comparison would be conducted were provided. Other factors that could influence efficiency other than flow level and time of day may be fish size and season. Presumably, the trap efficiency data will provide the necessary data to examine the effect of these factors on trap efficiency, but these analyses were not discussed in the proposal. The low smolt trap efficiencies also raise the possibility that alternative methods of enumerating smolts might be considered. For example is a PIT-tag array at the mouth of the study streams a possible option?

Some specific details needed in the proposal include (1) the method for estimating the number of eggs in a steelhead redd, and assumptions about egg-to-fry survival rates, (2) additional information about Satus and Ahtanum Creeks – why trap capture efficiencies and redd count accuracy is low and what can be done to improve the data, (3) an explanation of why the anticipated number of PIT-tagged fish should be sufficient to address the questions being asked and (4) some additional evaluation of some of the logistical aspects of the project such as access for spring spawner surveys and smolt trap modifications.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1996-035-01
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1996-035-01
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: (34.1 34.2 35.1 35.2 35.3 50.6 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 56.1 56.3)
Proponent Response:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
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 comments during contracting, when funds become available.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1996-035-01 - Yakama Reservation Watershed Project
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 ongoing project is very well described in the proposal. The sponsors are to be commended for the organization and presentation of the past and proposed work. A good qualitative summary of past results and actions with some data on fish abundance/trends based on snorkel surveys and redd counts is presented. Staff are to be commended for their insight, and their patient but assertive approach. However, they are dealing with some fairly sophisticated rehabilitation on a large scale, the results of which should be further evaluated, summarized, and reported in peer reviewed literature such as Restoration Ecology.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1996-035-01
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 watershed restoration activities; multiple other entities may be authorized/required. Recommend confirmation that no project will occur on lands where the activity is already required; needs review of cost share.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1996-035-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1996-035-01
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
Brandon Rogers Technical Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Jamie Brisbois (Inactive) Administrative Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Stolz (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Shannon Adams Project Lead Yakama Confederated Tribes
Roy Beaty (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
John Tyler Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Molly Moreland (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Michael Milstein (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Josh Hall (Inactive) Technical Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Michelle O'Malley Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Tana Hoptowit Administrative Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Dallas Reed Administrative Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Shawna Warehime Technical Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Michele Palmer Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration