FY07-09 proposal 200711200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Teanaway Watershed - Protect critical habitat from development, reduce water temperatures and increase instream flows, restore habitat forming processes in the floodplain. |
Proposal ID | 200711200 |
Organization | Kittitas Conservation Trust |
Short description | Teanaway watershed supports viable salmonid populations with complex spatial structure and diversity. Maximizing abundance and productivity of focal species requires protecting critical habitat, augmenting instream flows, & restoring floodplain functions |
Information transfer | Project information will be available on the sponsor's website. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
David Gerth | Kittitas Conservation Trust | kct@inlandnet.com |
All assigned contacts | ||
David Gerth | Kittitas Conservation Trust | kct@inlandnet.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Yakima
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Teanaway River | Teanaway River Watershed including the North, Middle, West Forks and the mainstem |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Mid-Columbia River Spring ESUprimary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
secondary: Cutthroat Trout
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
secondary: Mountain Whitefish
Additional: Spotted Owl, American Beaver
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
PCSRF - WSRFB | 04-1672 | NF Teanaway Floodplain Protection | Conservation easement acquisition of floodplain property along both sides of 1.8 stream miles in the North Fork Teanaway floodplain. Implements Phase-1 of the riparian habitat protection strategy for the Teanaway watershed. |
BPA | 198811500 | Cle Elum Supplementation Facility Construction | Construct upper Yakima River spring chinook salmon production facilities to rebuild anadromous fish stocks in the Yakima Basin. Smolts from C/E facility finish rearing at Jack Creek acclimation facility before out-migration. Returning spawners rely on Teanaway River watershed for habitat needs. |
BPA | 198811516 | Yakima Hatchery Acclimation Sites | Designates Jack Creek as one of three acclimation facility sites for the YKFP supplementation program. The Teanaway watershed is vetted by the co-managers as viable salmon habitat for species recovery |
BPA | 199506325 | YKFP - Supplementation Monitoring And Evaluation | Demonstrates efficacy of supplementation as a cornerstone of efforts to rebuild salmon and steelhead runs throughout the Columbia Basin. |
BPA | 199704700 | Yakima River Basin Side Channels Acquisitions | Formalizes BPA's commitment to habitat protection through acquisition of high priority habitats along the mainstem Yakima River. Teanaway acquisition is for high priority habitat in a naturally flowing headwaters tributary. |
BPA | 199704901 | Teanaway River Instream Restoration NRCS | National Resources Conservation Service subcontract for riparian plantings to create shading in the lower mainstem reach. |
BPA | 199704902 | Teanaway River Instream Restoration KCCD | Kittitas County Conservation District began water temperature measurements in the Teanaway watershed. Assessments led to prioritization of actions to improve passage and spawning opportunities. |
BPA | 199705100 | Yakima Basin Side Channels | BPA funding for continued acquisition of productive habitat as a strategy to mitigate for loss of native stocks. |
BPA | 200201300 | Water Entity (RPA- 151) | Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program created by BPA to find and develop opportunities for instream water acquisition. N. Fk. Teanaway water rights acquisition is part of this proposal. |
BPA | 200202100 | Reduce Teanaway Water Temperatures | Increase irrigation efficiency on ag lands, stabilize stream banks, plant riparian trees. Improves habitat values and increases need for protection actions in the watershed. |
BPA | 199704900 | Teanaway River Flow Restoration (BOR) | Implement actions to increase instream flows in the Teanaway by 20 cfs with the expectation of 4,000 returning spring chinook spawners. Bureau of Reclamation partnership. Investment of $2.4million for improvements. |
Other: Bureau of Reclamation | YRBWEP | Lambert Rd./Masterson Pumping Facility | Lower Teanaway ag diversions consolidated and $4.4 million invested for construction of pumping facility. Instream diversion dams removed creating enhanced passage for spawners returning to the Teanaway watershed. |
Other: WA Dept. of Ecology | Teanaway TMDL | Teanaway Water Temperature TMDL | WDOE conducted water temperature assessment (2000), issued TMDL report (2001), created implementation plan (2003). Conclusions drawn from this work for temperature improvement are integrated into this restoration proposal. |
Other: US Forest Service | Cle Elum Ranger | Respect the River, associated riparian improvements | Cle Elum Ranger District implementing an educational and information program to help mitigate human caused riparian impacts on N. Fk. Teanaway. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Increase Flows and Reduce Aquatic Temperatures | Reduce number of lethal temperature days and develop flow benchmarks. Restore the temperature regime and the extent of thermal refugia to normative ranges, timing, and extent. | Yakima | Purchase or lease of diversionary water rights for instream flows, especially for late season. Restore riparian zone shading through revegetation. Restore side channels and springbrooks. |
Manage Forest & Range Land to Recover ESA Species | Protect distinct N. Fork Teanaway fluvial Bull Trout population from extinction. Reduce potential for grazing operations to impact Bull Trout spawning habitat or redds. | Yakima | Implement actions that foster diversity and resiliency of threatened species. Mitigate anthropogenic impacts to habitat. Collaborate with cattle producer and employ livestock stream exclusion techniques. Construct off channel watering structures. |
Protect Functional Habitat from Degradation Threat | Protection of existing highly productive habitats, and productive or threatened populations is a high priority for maintenance of the diversity, productivity and health of the Yakima Subbasin. There is a strong link between development and riparian zone loss due to conversion to other uses. | Yakima | Acquire land or protective easements as a means of habitat protection. Work with cooperating landowners, tribes, public agencies through purchase, easement, and land use agreements to protect intact floodplain habitats and secure lands for restoration. |
Restore Ecological Function to Degraded Habitat | Restore wetland and upland components of the floodplain to meet the native habitat needs of the focal species. Restore floodplain, channel, and riparian zone processes to improve habitat quantity and diversity. | Yakima | Implement protection and restoration activities in tributary areas important to focal species. Instal LWD to improve channel complexity and encourage sediment deposition in areas scoured to bedrock. Purchase easements to allow restoration. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Land Purchase | Conservation Easement Purchase of Development Rights in Perpetuity | Payment for purchase of property rights delineated in the Grant of Conservation Easement, payable to Grantor as a real estate purchase and sale transaction | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $1,419,000 |
Biological objectives Protect Functional Habitat from Degradation Threat |
Metrics * # of riparian miles protected: 12.20 * Start date of easement: 1/1/2008 |
||||
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Complete Environmental Compliance Processes and Obtain Permits | Gather, acquire, and prepare all documents necessary to obtaining environmental compliance, e.g. NEPA checklist, Biological Assessment, Hydraulic Project Approvals. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $30,000 |
Biological objectives Restore Ecological Function to Degraded Habitat |
Metrics |
||||
Develop Alternative Water Source | Design and Construct Off Channel Livestock Watering Features | Collaborate with cattle producer and equestrian herder to find watering solutions that exclude cattle from critical habitat. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $8,000 |
Biological objectives Manage Forest & Range Land to Recover ESA Species |
Metrics |
||||
Increase Instream Habitat Complexity | Increase Instream Habitat Quantity and Enhance Quality | Improve channel stabilization. Install LWD to create pools and refugia for aquatic species and mitigate flashy runoff from logged uplands. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $110,000 |
Biological objectives Increase Flows and Reduce Aquatic Temperatures Restore Ecological Function to Degraded Habitat |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated: 8.72 * # of structures installed: 32 * End lat of treated reach: 47.354620 * Start lat of treated reach: 47.270818 * End long of treated reach: -120.851630 * Start long of treated reach: -120.881757 |
||||
Install Fence | Exclude Livestock from Grazing in the Riparian Zone | Collaborate with cattle producer to implement a grazing plan that excludes cattle from critical riparian habitat. Employ seasonal equestrian herder in lieu of fencing. | 5/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $40,000 |
Biological objectives Manage Forest & Range Land to Recover ESA Species |
Metrics * # of miles of fence: 12.44 |
||||
Plant Vegetation | Revegetate Riparian Zone with Native Species | Create riparian shade and future LWD recruitment through revegetation of the riparian zone. Native cottonwood and other wetland species revegetate a 25 foot buffer on both sides of the stream. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $90,000 |
Biological objectives Increase Flows and Reduce Aquatic Temperatures Restore Ecological Function to Degraded Habitat |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 32.5 * # of riparian miles treated: 13.40 |
||||
Maintain Vegetation | Implement Actions to Increase Riparian Planting Survival | Irrigate, fertilize, and protect plantings from pests. Install protective devices as needed. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $12,000 |
Biological objectives Restore Ecological Function to Degraded Habitat |
Metrics |
||||
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Maintain and Repair Instream and Upland Habitat Restoration Features | Maintain grazing management constructs, off channel watering facilities, sediment management structures, and tributary passage improvements. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $20,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Provide Public Access/Information | Manage Public Access to Protected Floodplain Habitat | Design and install educational signs and kiosks, establish and maintain parking opportunities at designated points of entry, demarcate hiking trails within the conservation easement lands. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $42,000 |
Biological objectives Protect Functional Habitat from Degradation Threat |
Metrics |
||||
Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities | Designate lands for conservation easement protection, negotiate terms. | Develop summary of conservation easement terms and conditions, reach agreements with landowner about property boundaries, appraisal and review of property values, survey easement extents, draft grant deed of easement, negotiate purchase price and option agreements. | 10/1/2006 | 9/15/2009 | $164,000 |
Biological objectives Protect Functional Habitat from Degradation Threat |
Metrics |
||||
Coordination | Coordinate Scientific Resources, Landowners, Documentation | Coordinate assistance from WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Yakama Nation (YKFP); respond to landowners' questions and requests | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $9,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | Manage Finances, Deliverables Tracking, Subcontractors Progress | Administer and track contracts, finances, progress of deliverables, communication with BPA contract officer, cost share accounting. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2007 | $12,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Plan | Produce Habitat Protection, Stewardship, and Monitoring Plans | Identify and prioritize conservation values to be protected by easement, plot strategy to monitor restoration improvements, itemize stewardship requirements for perpetual enforcement of terms and conditions of the conservation easement. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $10,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Acquire Water Instream | Purchase or Lease Water Rights in N. Fk. Teanaway | Direct payment to land owner for water rights transaction. Lease or purchase to State Trust for instream flow beneficial use. | 5/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $60,000 |
Biological objectives Increase Flows and Reduce Aquatic Temperatures |
Metrics * # of miles of primary stream reach improvement: 3.4 * # of miles of total stream reach improvement, including primary and secondary reaches: 13.6 * Amount of water secured: 104.0 * End date of returned flow: Sept. 2009 * Flow of water returned to the stream as prescribed in the water acquisition: 0.52 * Start date of returned flow: May 2007 *End month for water instream: October *Start month for water instream: May |
||||
Develop and Negotiate Water Right Transaction | Develop Water Rights Transaction to State Water Trust for instream Flows | Examine extent and validity of landowner's water right on the N. Fk. Teanaway, develop information for Report of Examination, negotiate terms of lease or purchase for instream flow beneficial use. | 10/1/2006 | 9/1/2009 | $18,000 |
Biological objectives Increase Flows and Reduce Aquatic Temperatures |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | Land Acquisition | $619,000 | $500,000 | $300,000 |
Other | Purchase Water Rights | $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
Personnel | Contract Labor | $150,000 | $161,000 | $131,000 |
Travel | Travel included in Contracts | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Supplies | LWD, native plants, fence, etc. | $39,000 | $43,000 | $41,000 |
Totals | $828,000 | $724,000 | $492,000 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $2,044,000 |
Total work element budget: | $2,044,000 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kittitas Conservation Trust | Project Management | $32,000 | $29,000 | $29,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
SRFB | Cash | $200,000 | $200,000 | $61,740 | Cash | Confirmed |
WDFW | Technical | $4,000 | $3,000 | $2,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
YKFP | Habitat Biologist | $5,000 | $3,000 | $2,000 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
Totals | $241,000 | $235,000 | $94,740 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $90,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $90,000 |
Comments: Proposed future acquisitions and restoration |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date:
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$1,024,000 | $0 | $0 | $1,024,000 | Capital | ProvinceCapital | Fund |
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$340,000 | $340,000 | $340,000 | $1,020,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$340,000 | $340,000 | $340,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
Comments: Address ISRP concerns during contracting. See also habitat m&e programmatic issue in decision memo. |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The project proposes to enlarge a system of floodplain protection along the North Fork Teanaway River. This is a worthy goal that is likely to benefit many species, especially if the alternative is urban development. The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by addressing the following comments: The proposal makes a generally good case for funding the conservation easement, but it is weak on details of the riparian, instream, and cattle exclusion work, and monitoring seemed to be mentioned primarily as an afterthought. Objectives were concisely stated in outline format, but with little additional explanation. Inclusion of timelines would have been very helpful (all the tasks seemed very open-ended). Although the list of steps involved in completing each work element was logical, who would accomplish each of these steps was not clear. Setting aside the administrative and planning methods involved in securing the conservation easement and acquiring water rights, which will depend on local contacts and interest, there was insufficient description of the methods used to implement the restoration work. At least a few details would have been helpful, e.g., would native vegetation be used for riparian revegetation work? What would the instream structures look like and where would they be placed? How many cowboys would be needed to keep the cattle out of the stream and riparian areas and when would they be used? The only places monitoring was mentioned was in regard to the riparian re-vegetation work and the effectiveness of off-channel watering facilities. Overall, monitoring did not appear to have been given high priority; there is no discussion of who would do the monitoring or how long it would be done. Although the ISRP does not base its recommendations on budget issues, the budget request for some of the tasks seem high relative to the type of work involved. There are a number of work elements that seem to be much more costly than similar activities in other proposals. For example, providing for public access to the site is budgeted at $42,000, cattle control is $90,000, and the administrative cost for the easement is $164,000. There is nothing in the proposal that explained why these costs are so high. If there is a justification, it should be provided.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The project proposes to enlarge a system of floodplain protection along the North Fork Teanaway River. This is a worthy goal that is likely to benefit many species, especially if the alternative is urban development. The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by addressing the following comments: The proposal makes a generally good case for funding the conservation easement, but it is weak on details of the riparian, instream, and cattle exclusion work, and monitoring seemed to be mentioned primarily as an afterthought. Objectives were concisely stated in outline format, but with little additional explanation. Inclusion of timelines would have been very helpful (all the tasks seemed very open-ended). Although the list of steps involved in completing each work element was logical, who would accomplish each of these steps was not clear. Setting aside the administrative and planning methods involved in securing the conservation easement and acquiring water rights, which will depend on local contacts and interest, there was insufficient description of the methods used to implement the restoration work. At least a few details would have been helpful, e.g., would native vegetation be used for riparian revegetation work? What would the instream structures look like and where would they be placed? How many cowboys would be needed to keep the cattle out of the stream and riparian areas and when would they be used? The only places monitoring was mentioned was in regard to the riparian re-vegetation work and the effectiveness of off-channel watering facilities. Overall, monitoring did not appear to have been given high priority; there is no discussion of who would do the monitoring or how long it would be done. Although the ISRP does not base its recommendations on budget issues, the budget request for some of the tasks seem high relative to the type of work involved. There are a number of work elements that seem to be much more costly than similar activities in other proposals. For example, providing for public access to the site is budgeted at $42,000, cattle control is $90,000, and the administrative cost for the easement is $164,000. There is nothing in the proposal that explained why these costs are so high. If there is a justification, it should be provided.