FY 2001 Columbia Gorge proposal 21028

Additional documents

TitleType
21028 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleKlickitat Watershed and Habitat Enhancement Project
Proposal ID21028
OrganizationYakama Nation (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMelvin Sampson
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / mel@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this projectMelvin Sampson
Review cycleColumbia Gorge
Province / SubbasinColumbia Gorge / Klickitat
Short descriptionThis project will compliment ongoing habitat enhancement projects throughout the Klickitat basin by protecting parcels of high-quality habitat and restoring degraded upland and riparian habitat via acquisition, conservation easements and long-term lease.
Target speciessteelhead, chinook salmon, coho salmon, Oregon white oak, Columbia blacktail deer
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.09 -121.15 Klickitat subbasin
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
New Project

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9705600 Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Enhancement Project The Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project will provide a funding mechanism for protecting high-quality habitats identified in Project 9705600
0 Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Program All aspects of this project will compliment the activities of the YKFP
0 Inventory and Restore Beaver and Beaver Habitat This project will guide some of the land prioritization activities for restoration.
9206200 Yakama Nation Wetlands and Riparian Restoration The procedures for large-scale habitat protection and restoration developed by this Yakima Basin project will be mirrored in the Klickitat Basin.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Acquire priority high-quality habitats for long term management (300-800 acres per year). a. Develop long-term acquisition priorities. 1 $30,500
b. Conduct annual planning and pre-acquisition activities such as ownership research and appraisals. 30 $10,000
2. Protect, restore, and/or enhance secured lands to realize an increase in fisheries and wildlife habitat values. a. Develop site-specific restoration plans for properties. 40 $15,000
b. Adapt restoration plans according to monitoring information relative to plan objectives. 40 $3,040
3. Adaptively manage properties to ensure permanent habitat values. a. Develop site-specific management plans according to results achieved in monitoring activities. 60 $15,260
b. Adapt site-specific management plans according to monitoring results. 60 $5,140
4. Monitor fisheries and wildlife habitat conditions to ensure the desired levels are reached and maintained. a. Develop site-specific as well as landscape-level monitoring and evaluation plans 60 $10,020
b. Modify monitoring plans, as necessary, based on annual feedback 60 $2,810
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$100,000$105,000$110,000$115,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Acquire priority high-quality habitats for long term management (300-800 acres per year) a. Organize Klickitat County ownership status into a GIS and integrate with a relational database of habitat data to aid prioritization, maximize connectivity, and minimize transaction costs 2 $120,000 Yes
b. Secure land in perpetuity with appropriate procedure outline in project implementation plan (purchase, easement, or lease). 30 $2,480,000
2. Protect, restore, and/or enhance secured lands to realize an increase in fisheries and wildlife habitat values. a. Implement restoration activites identified in site-specific restoration plan. 40 $14,590 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$2,800,000$3,000,000$3,200,000$2,800,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Adaptively manage properties to ensure permanent wildlife habitat value. a. Manage parcels according to site-specific plans. 60 $22,000
b. Adapt site-specific management plans according to monitoring results. 60 $2,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$80,000$130,000$165,000$190,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
1. Monitor fisheries and wildlife habitat conditions to ensure the desired mitigation level is reached and maintained a. Perform baseline inventory with periodic revisitation to evaluate habitat response to managment actions 60 $5,000
b. Perform fishery and wildlife surveys on selected parels to evaluate response to habitat. 60 $5,000
2. Assess Monitoring Information a. Conduct annual reviews to evaluate habitat and wildlife response relative to site-specific objectives. 60 $500
b. Conduct annual reviews to evaluate habitat and wildlife response relative to landscape-level objectives. 60 $500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2002FY 2003FY 2004FY 2005
$20,000$25,000$30,000$40,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Personnel FTE: 3.5 $92,000
Fringe 20 % fringe rate $15,000
Supplies Miscellaneous supplies and materials, computer, telephone $25,000
Travel Training and/or project presentation $1,750
Indirect 23.5 % $24,910
Capital 0 $2,440,000
NEPA $0
PIT tags # of tags: 0 $0
Subcontractor None $130,000
Other GSA vehicle rental. insurance, and mileage $12,700
$2,741,360
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$2,741,360
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$2,741,360
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Assist in property identification and evaluation. $50,000 in-kind
Bureau of Indian Affairs Planning assistance, heavy equipment use. $20,000 in-kind
Salmon Corps Personnel to assist construction and restoration. $10,000 in-kind
Columbia Land Trust Planning, acquisition assistance. $10,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
No decision. Not amenable to scientific review
Date:
Oct 6, 2000

Comment:

No decision, this project is not amenable to scientific review. This could have significant fish and wildlife benefits but without knowing the potential purchases it is impossible to know if the potential will be realized. Further, the presenter noted that the project was not integrated with the watershed assessment and habitat rehabilitation efforts in the basin. Support for this type of proposal for land acquisition is more a policy decision than science, but given that:
  1. the proposal has not been integrated with other Klickitat proposals (as noted above),
  2. it lacks specific actions to evaluate, and
  3. if this panel needs to be consistent in providing recommendations across proposals; we would advise NOT to fund this proposal on the basis of this ISRP review process.

The proponents need to reference a watershed assessment and described a fully developed plan with subbasin level goals and objectives that justify the purchases.

If this trust fund principle was applied across all the basins it would use up all the BPA funds. A notable benefit to this process appears to be that in the Yakima this approach has drawn in cost-sharing contributions. This is not science but land management; nevertheless, likely an important aspect of the rehabilitation work required. There is clearly merit in having funds available to opportunistically purchase land when it becomes available, but should this advantage be provided to only one watershed?


Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 15, 2000

Comment:

The approach proposed here is currently being developed on a regional basis. In the Amended Fish and Wildlife Program a Land and Water Acquisition Fund has been proposed. This project raises the question whether trusts should be created for each subbasin or maintained on a province or regional scale. The approach proposed here is laudable in the method and approach for securing acquisitions, but guidelines for purchases are unclear. Land trust issues should be resolved in a regional forum before being established within individual subbasins or for individual projects.

FY 01 Budget Review Comments: Land trust issues should be resolved in a regional forum before being established within individual subbasins or for individual projects. If more than one of the three new Yakama Nation wildlife projects are funded (21026, 21027 and 21028), the projects should be combined to maximize efficiencies in implementation and insure cost effectiveness.


Recommendation:
N/A
Date:
Dec 1, 2000

Comment:

No decision, this project is not amenable to scientific review. This could have significant fish and wildlife benefits but without knowing the potential purchases it is impossible to know if the potential will be realized. Further, the presenter noted that the project was not integrated with the watershed assessment and habitat rehabilitation efforts in the basin. Support for this type of proposal for land acquisition is more a policy decision than science, but given that:
  1. the proposal has not been integrated with other Klickitat proposals (as noted above),
  2. it lacks specific actions to evaluate, and
  3. if this panel needs to be consistent in providing recommendations across proposals; we would advise NOT to fund this proposal on the basis of this ISRP review process.
The proponents need to reference a watershed assessment and described a fully developed plan with subbasin level goals and objectives that justify the purchases.

If this trust fund principle was applied across all the basins it would use up all the BPA funds. A notable benefit to this process appears to be that in the Yakima this approach has drawn in cost-sharing contributions. This is not science but land management; nevertheless, likely an important aspect of the rehabilitation work required. There is clearly merit in having funds available to opportunistically purchase land when it becomes available, but should this advantage be provided to only one watershed?


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001

Comment: