Response for project 199803300: Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed
Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget
The budget is consistent with Bonneville's approved 2005 budget. However, a 6% increase would cover inflation cost that affects daily activities. Therefore an increase in the project budget to $439,949 is very much needed.
Accomplishments since the last review
| BPA Environmental Compliance | Project staff complete all environmental compliance documentation prior to beginning any project. | |
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Project staff complete all required environmental compliance documentation prior to starting any project, as per out contract. | |
| Identify and Select Projects | Project staff continuously work to identify and select projects throughout the watershed. | |
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Project staff reqularly inventory stream flow, and use that data to make instream flow minimum decisions. | |
| Coordination | Project staff coordinate with BIA Range and YN Wildlife | |
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project managers are involved in all aspects of managing contractors, projects, metric reporting, budgeting, and SOW development. | |
| Provide Technical Review | Project staff review all proposals for instream work in Toppeninsh Creek. Staff are involved in the Tribal Interdisciplinary Team, and review all proposals. | |
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Project staff produce designs and specifications for a wide variety of restoration related activities. | |
| Produce Annual Report | Staff provide quarterly and annual reports to BPA, as per our contract. | |
| Produce Status Report | Project staff produce milestone status reports for BPA as per our contract. | |
| # of stream miles treated (0.01 mi.) | .3 miles | |
| # of structures installed | 9 | |
| # of stream miles treated before realignment (0.1 mi.) | .3 miles. | |
| # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment (0.1 mi.) | .4 miles | |
| Develop Alternative Water Source | Drilled 1 stock well on the north side of Toppenish Ridge. Also installed 3 miles of pipeline to distribute the water along the ridge. | |
| # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored | .3 miles, created a hardened ford. | |
| # of miles of fence (0.01 mi.) | Built approximately 5 miles of riparian and range fence. | |
| Enhance Nutrients Instream | Added 300 fall chinook carcassas throughout the Toppenish Watershed. Cracasses are sterilized prior to distribution. | |
| Maintain Terrestrial Structure | Project personel maintaing approximately 15 miles of riparian and range fence. | |
| Maintain Vegetation | Project staff maintain approximately 100 acers of vegetation at several different sites. | |
| Operate/Maintain Facility | Monitor and maintain adequate amount of water for fish passage in Toppenish Creek. This includes maintaing stream gages and closely monitoring the operation of irrigation headgates. | |
| Investigate Trespass | Project Range Rider monitors and reports on all cattle found out of their designated areas. | |
| Is the screen New or a Replacement? (N/R) | New | |
| Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs? (Y/N) | Yes | |
| Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right. (0.1 cfs) | 10cfs | |
| Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier? (Y/N) | Yes | |
| # of miles of habitat accessed (0.1 mi.) | 4.9 miles | |
| Was barrier Full or Partial? (F/P) | Partial | |
| Install Fish Trap/Monitoring Weir | Project operates a 5ft rotary screw trap from November to early June. | |
| Mark/Tag Animals | Project staff PIT tag all O.mykiss over 90mm captured in the our screw trap. | |
| Manage/Maintain Database | Project staff reqularly maintain and add to the Project's GIS, streamflow, habitat, large woody debris, well level measurements,redd and juvenile outmigration, and water quality. | |
| Disseminate Raw & Summary Data | Staff provide data summaries to federal, state and local agencies in the form of emails, maps and brief write ups. | |
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Staff conduct intinsive statistical analysis of smolt outmigraton and redd data. Also use GIS for analysis of spatial data. | |
| Is the measuring device portable or fixed (P/F)? | Project has installed 7 stream gages, 2 of which have cellular telemetry. | |
| Estimated # of miles of total stream reach improvement | 5 miles | |
| Amount of unprotected water flow returned to the stream by conservation (cfs) | N/A | |
| Amount of unprotected water flow returned to the stream by conservation (acre-feet) | N/A | |
| Estimated # of miles of primary stream reach improvement | 1 mile |
2002- Implemented minimum instream flow requirements throughout the Toppenish Watershed. Performed weekly wading streamflow measurements to understand stream hydrology and to monitor instream minimum flow. Operated rotary screw trap to monitor juvenile salmonid outmigration. Conducted steelhead spawning surveys. Deployed temp sensors to monitor water quality. Collected watershed data including all salmonid redds found, with GPS for entry into the Toppenish Project’s GIS 2003- Maintained beaver dams for fish passage and floodplain connection Monitored stream as in 2002, but added TFW habitat surveys, cataloged size and disposition of LWD using GPS. Collected watershed data including all salmonid redds found, with GPS for entry into the Toppenish Project’s GIS 2004- Maintained 3 miles of fence surrounding headwater meadows. Completed the scoping and engineering phase of the Agency Creek Headcut and Willy Dick Culvert Stabilization, began the permitting for Agency Creek, completed permitting for Willy Dick. Completed Willy Dick Culvert Stabilization Project. Maintained 28 stock water wells Planted 1500 stems of riparian species at 3 sites to restore riparian and wet meadow areas. Monitored stream as in 2003. Collected watershed data including all salmonid redds found, with GPS for entry into the Toppenish Project’s GIS Installed 7 stream gages, 2 with cellular telemetry. 2005- Planted 1000 riparian plants at 1 site. Installed .7 miles of riparian fence. Monitored stream as in 2004. Completed Agency Creek Headcut Project. Collected watershed data including all salmonid redds found, with GPS for entry into the Toppenish Project’s GIS.
FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments
| BPA Environmental Compliance | Project staff will continue to complete all environemental compliance documentation needed. | |
| Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Project staff will continue to complete all required environmental compliance documentation needed. | |
| Identify and Select Projects | Project staff will continue to work to identify and select projects throughout the watershed. | |
| Produce Inventory or Assessment | Project staff will continue to regularly inventory stream flow and use that data to make instream flow recommendations. | |
| Coordination | Project staff will continue to coordinate with BIA and YN Wildlife. | |
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project mangers will continue to be involved in all aspects of managing contractors, projects, and internal administration. | |
| Provide Technical Review | Project staff will continue to review all proposals for instream work in Toppenish watershed. | |
| Produce Plan | Project staff will continue to work on any plans relevent to our scope of work. | |
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Project staff will continue to produce designs and specifications for a wide variety of restoration efforts. | |
| Produce Annual Report | Project staff will continue to provide quarterly and annual reports to BPA, as per our contract. | |
| Produce Status Report | Project staff will continue to produce milestone status reports to BPA as per our contract. | |
| # of stream miles treated (0.01 mi.) | Plan on treating 4 miles of stream improvments. | |
| # of structures installed | 100 structures to be installed. | |
| # of stream miles treated before realignment (0.1 mi.) | 1 | |
| # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment (0.1 mi.) | 1 | |
| Conduct Controlled Burn | Plan on working with BIA fuels management to do controlled burns in riparian areas. | |
| Develop Alternative Water Source | Project staff will continue to assist landowners in developing alternate water sources to maintain instream flow. | |
| # of road miles improved, upgraded, or restored | Project stall will continue to assist BIA forestry to develop road improvements. Will also identify any other problem road within the watershed. | |
| # of miles of fence (0.01 mi.) | Project staff will continue to identify problem fence and maintain fences. | |
| Enhance Nutrients Instream | As carcasses come available we will continue to do this. | |
| # of acres of vegetation planted (0.1 ac.) | 1 | |
| # of riparian miles treated (0.01 mi.; count each bank separately) | 1 | |
| # of acres treated (0.1 ac) | 50 acres will be treated. | |
| Enhance Floodplain | Plan to remove a .25 dike in Willy Dick. | |
| Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland | Plan on using control stuctures in wetland meadows. | |
| Maintain Terrestrial Structure | Project staff will continue to maintain all fences that were built. | |
| Replace/Maintain Instream Structure | Plans or to maintain any structures that have been previously installed. | |
| Maintain Vegetation | Project staff will continue to maintain any planting efforts that was done by our project to secure the success. | |
| Investigate Trespass | Project Range rider will continue to watch livestock and make sure they are in there designated range unit and not tresspassing. | |
| Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate (0.1 acre-feet/year) | 2 acre feet of water will be protected by screening the Hubbard diversion and the Smartlowit. | |
| Is the screen New or a Replacement? (N/R) | New. | |
| Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs? (Y/N) | Yes | |
| Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right. (0.1 cfs) | 5 CFS | |
| If installing a ladder, does the ladder meet NOAA specifications for attraction flow, pool dimensions, jump height, etc? (Y/N) | N/A | |
| Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier? (Y/N) | Yes | |
| # of miles of habitat accessed (0.1 mi.) | 1 mile | |
| Was barrier Full or Partial? (F/P) | Partial | |
| # of riparian miles protected (0.01 mi.) | 3 miles of Riparian protected. | |
| # of acres of new lease. (0.1 ac.) | 20 acres. | |
| # of acres of renewed lease (0.1 ac.) | n/a | |
| Start and end dates of lease (mm/dd/yyyy) | 1/2006-12-2006 | |
| Install Fish Trap/Monitoring Weir | Project staff will continue to operate a 5ft. screw trap. | |
| Mark/Tag Animals | Project staff will continue to PIT tag all O.mykiss over 100mm that is caught in 5ft. screw trap. | |
| Manage/Maintain Database | Project staff will continue to maintain and add to the projects GIS, stream flow, temperature, redd survy and screw trap data. | |
| Disseminate Raw & Summary Data | Staff will continue to provide data summaries to federal, state and local agencies that apply to the Yakama Nation. | |
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Project staff will continue to conduct intinsive statistical analysis of smolt outmigration and redd data. | |
| Estimated # of miles of primary stream reach improvement | 3 miles of stream protected. | |
| Estimated # of miles of total stream reach improvement | 3 miles of stream improvment. | |
| Amount of unprotected water flow returned to the stream by conservation (cfs) | 1 cfs. | |
| Amount of unprotected water flow returned to the stream by conservation (acre-feet) | 2 acre feet. | |
| Is the measuring device portable or fixed (P/F)? | If money is available some more stream guages may be needed for cellular telemetry. | |
| Estimated # of miles of total stream reach improvement | 2 miles | |
| Amount of unprotected water flow returned to the stream by conservation (cfs) | 1 cfs | |
| Amount of unprotected water flow returned to the stream by conservation (acre-feet) | 2 acre feet. | |
| Estimated # of miles of primary stream reach improvement | 5 miles of stream improvement. | |
| Develop and Negotiate Water Right Transaction | Project staff work on a minimum flow criteria that is ratified by Yakama Nation Tribal council into policy. |
Goals are to continue the monitoring efforts as in previous years. This monitoring effort is the main source of information on abundance, productivity and spatial distribution of an entire population of threatened steelhead, and is critical in the subbasin planning and recovery planning process. There are 3 restoration projects in the planning phase for 2006. 1. Removing a dike on Willy Dick Creek that is confining the stream against a hillslope. 2. Remove 2 non-functional culverts in the upper watershed of Willy Dick Creek. 3. Arrest a headcut that has been in NF Simcoe creek. These three project are in steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. Completion of these projects would improve steelhead survival. Project will continue to fence and revegetate riparian areas.
Subbasin planning
How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?
This project is consistent with and implements Tier 1 (top priority) habitat limiting factors as described in the Yakima Subbasin Plan Supplement http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/yakima/plan/Supplement.pdf The strategies below, all within the “implementable” category, address Tier 1 limiting factors (see list of factors in Table 2, p. 11), and each strategy is directed at one or more Assessment Units (AUs). The Toppenish Creek watershed is part of AU #3 (low elevation tributaries). Table 8, p. 26 (population performance), strategy 2 (monitoring). Toppenish Creek steelhead are an independent population according to NMFS recovery criteria. This project has provided most of what is known about performance of this steelhead population. Table 9, p. 26 (flow), strategies 1, 3, 4 and 5 (flow increases, floodplain protection and restoration). Project staff, in conjunction with YN Tribal Council, have implemented instream minimum flows throughout the irrigated portions of the Toppenish Watershed. The project’s ongoing efforts to reconnect side channels and bring the stream into better connection with the floodplain are consistent with the strategies in table 9. Table 10, p. 27 (obstructions), strategy 1 (reconnect side channels) Table 11, p. 28 (key habitat quantity), strategies 1 (side channels), 3 (floodplains), 4 (forest roads) Table 12, p. 29 (habitat diversity), strategies 1 (side channels), 3 (floodplains), 8 (easements), 9 (riparian restoration) Table 13, p. 30 (temperature), strategies 1 (riparian restoration), 2 (side channels) Table 14, p. 30 (fine sediment), strategies 2 (road improvements), 4 (tech assistance), 5 (revegetation) Table 15, p. 31 (channel stability), strategies 2 (channel constrictions), 4 (riparian restoration), 7 (revegetation)
How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?
A subbasin plan supplement was submitted November 26, 2004 in response to the Council’s request for clearer linkages among limiting factors, objectives and strategies. The long list of key findings, objectives and strategies in Chapter 4 of the original Subbasin Plan breaks down into three broad categories of limiting factors: (1) Habitat limiting factors, (2) Population performance and response limiting factors, and (3) Institutional limiting factors. The first and second categories of limiting factors are discussed here. Objectives and strategies under Category 2, the population performance and response limiting factors are listed in Table 8 of the supplement. This project is consistent with and implements Tier 1 (top priority) habitat limiting factors as described in the Yakima Subbasin Plan Supplement The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model provided the necessary framework to categorize, summarize, and prioritize habitat limiting factors. Level 3 EDT environmental parameters were selected because the level 3 categories of limiting factors succinctly summarize the key habitat factors limiting the biological potential of focal species. At the level 3 scale, the EDT model defines sixteen environmental parameters that impede the biological performance and response potential of salmonids. Utilizing the results of the EDT model, local expert knowledge, the Subbasin Plan Assessment (Chapter 2), and other tools and resources, the limiting factors were divided into three tiers based on severity of impact to focal species, number of focal species affected, and on geographic extent of the factors. Within each tier the limiting factors are also listed in general priority. The seven Tier 1 limiting factors (Tables 9-15 of the Supplement) have the most impact on aquatic species production potential within the subbasin and should be addressed first. Only Tier 1 limiting factors, objectives and strategies, and only those strategies shown as “implementable” (i.e. capable of being carried out without first resolving a key uncertainty or other contingency) are discussed here.