Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 199705600 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Melvin Sampson |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / mel@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Melvin Sampson |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Klickitat |
| Short description | |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.84 |
-121.05 |
Lower Klickitat River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS/BPA |
Action 153 |
NMFS |
BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1997 |
Initial TFW habitat inventory of entire Swale Creek stream corridor. |
| 1997 |
Project initiation, landowner involvement, and town meetings. |
| 1998 |
Completion of Project Supplemental Analysis and finding of consistency with Watershed Management Program EIS (DOE/EIS-0265) |
| 1998 |
Constructed 2 base flow augmentation ponds with a total watershed of 617 acres of agricultural lands. |
| 1998 |
Fenced and revegetate 2 base flow augmentation ponds. |
| 1998 |
Constructed 6 miles of cattle exclosure fencing, protecting 6 miles of riparain habitat. |
| 1998 |
Revegetate 4 miles of riparian corridor. |
| 1998 |
Completed engineering design plans for 1/2 mile of in-channel work for lower Swale Creek. |
| 1998 |
Installed off-channel watering system on 1,200 acre Swale Creek sheep ranch. |
| 1999 |
Constructed 5 base flow augmentation ponds with a total watershed of 1505 acres of agricultural lands. |
| 1999 |
Fenced and revegetate 5 base flow augmentation ponds. |
| 1999 |
Constructed 8 miles of cattle exclosure fencing, protecting 16 miles of riparian habitat. |
| 1999 |
Revegetate 3 miles of riparian corridor. |
| 1999 |
Completed engineering design plans for milldam passage enhancement as cost-share project. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 199701725 |
YKFP - Design and construction |
Habitat restoration will provide benefits to anadromous fish, such as higher summer base flows, enhanced water quality, and creation of over-wintering habitat, thus providing and enhancing habitat for supplemental fish provided by the YKFP project. |
| 199506325 |
YKFP - Operation & Maintenance |
Habitat restoration will provide benefits to anadromous fish, such as higher summer base flows, enhanced water quality, and creation of over-wintering habitat, thus enhancing habitat for supplemental fish provided by the YKFP project. |
| 198812025 |
YKFP - Management, Habitat, and Data |
Habitat restoration will provide benefits to anadromous fish, such as higher summer base flows, enhanced water quality, and creation of over-wintering habitat, thus enhancing habitat for supplemental fish provided by the YKFP project. |
| 199812025 |
YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation |
Baseline data collection under the YKFP project can be used to evaluate and prioritize reaches for restoration potential. YKFP crews would be available for monitoring restored habitat as well as monitoring fish utilization within in newly restored areas. |
|
Inventory and Restore Beaver and Beaver Habitats |
Beaver restoration in the upper basin complements activities associated with this project. Enhanced water quality and more natural discharge relationships will improve conditions for fish and wildlife throughout the entire subbasin. |
|
Klickitat Watershed and Habitat Enhancement Project |
Riparian and adjacent uplands acquired under this project would undergo restoration activities, where appropriate. Additionally, the monitoring and evaluation associated with this project would assist that of acquisitions. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Identify and prioritize reaches for restoration activites |
a. Compile existing data and identify gaps. |
1 |
$12,500 |
|
|
b. Develop plan to fill data gaps and incorporate into existing data. |
1 |
$1,500 |
|
|
c. Prioritize reaches for restoration and adapt based on monitoring results |
2 |
$4,500 |
|
|
d. Determine ownership status of targeted reaches and recruit landowner cooperation |
35 |
$8,000 |
|
| 2. Protect, restore, and enhance priority reaches to increase riparian, wetland, and stream habitat values. |
a. Develop site-specific restoration plans |
35 |
$15,000 |
|
|
b. Identify and pursue alternate funding sources |
35 |
$2,500 |
|
|
c. Engage in cooperative agreements with public and private entities |
35 |
$3,000 |
|
| 3. Adaptively maintain and, where appropriate, manage sites to ensure protection of habitat values |
a. Develop site-specific maintenance criteria for all projects. |
35 |
$4,000 |
|
|
b. Adapt maintenance criteria based on monitoring results. |
35 |
$1,500 |
|
| 4. Monitor habitat conditions to ensure desired habitat levels are reached and maintained. |
a. Develop site-specific and landscape level monitoring plans. |
35 |
$3,400 |
|
|
b. Modify monitoring plans based on effectiveness. |
35 |
$1,250 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $59,700 | $64,584 | $69,750 | $75,330 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Protect, restore, and enhance priority habitats. |
a. Engage in cost-sharing opportunities with cooperators |
35 |
$42,150 |
|
|
b. Provide technical assistance to cooperators. |
35 |
$7,218 |
|
|
c. Implement restoration activities identified in site-specific plans |
35 |
$182,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $258,517 | $260,000 | $279,200 | $301,500 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Adaptively maintain and, where appropriate, manage sites to ensure protection habitat values |
a. Maintain sites according to site-specific maintenance criteria |
35 |
$8,650 |
|
|
b. Adapt maintenance criteria based on monitoring results. |
35 |
$1,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $35,000 | $40,000 | $45,000 | $50,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Monitor habitat conditions on restored and unrestored reaches to ensure desired habitat levels are reached and maintained. |
a. Perform baseline inventory with periodic revisitation to measure habitat response to management. |
35 |
$13,800 |
|
|
b. Conduct fisheries and/or wildlife inventories to assess response to habitat |
35, YKFP in-kind |
$0 |
|
| 2. Assess Monitoring Information |
a. Conduct semi-annual M&E reviews |
35 |
$800 |
|
|
b. Based on semi-annual M&E review, adapt habitat restoration plans to meet project goals |
35 |
$550 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $26,510 | $32,830 | $38,260 | $46,800 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1.0 |
$36,000 |
| Fringe |
25 % fringe rate |
$9,000 |
| Supplies |
Miscellaneous supplies and materials, computer, GIS supplies, telephone |
$20,704 |
| Travel |
Training and/or project presentation |
$2,500 |
| Indirect |
23.5 % |
$16,026 |
| Capital |
4-wheeler, trailer, and safety equipment to assist implementation and maintenance |
$15,870 |
| NEPA |
Cultural resource surveys |
$2,000 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: 0 |
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
For implementation and maintenance of restoration projects |
$192,000 |
| Other |
GSA vehicle rental. insurance, and mileage |
$9,600 |
| $303,700 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $303,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $303,700 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $300,000 |
| % change from forecast | 1.2% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
The net increase of $3,806 associated with Planning and Design will facilitate development of more site-specific implementation, maintenance, and monitoring plans. The $6,650 increase for Operations and Maintenance is for replacement costs for anticipated mortality of plantings due to exceptionally high temperatures and lack of rainfall this summer (which the SRF Maintenance Grant may not be able to cover). The additional $2,862 for Monitoring and Evaluation will facilitate collection of a more comprehensive set of monitoring parameters.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
1/4 time FTE, to assist in project scoping and development, land owner contact and permitting. |
$12,750 |
in-kind |
| Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
Engineering design at Snyder mill and lower Swale Creek |
$9,500 |
in-kind |
| Yakima Nation Natural Resource Program |
Will provide technical GIS assistance with complex operations and spatial analyses. |
$3,500 |
in-kind |
| Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project |
Monitoring and evaluation assistance. Fish population and habitat surveys, rotary screw traps, temperature monitoring, and sediment sampling will facilitate basinwide evaluation of habitat improvements. |
$63,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable only if response adequately address the ISRP's concerns; e.g. activities and costs are specified and expected benefits associated with these actions are projected. The panel recognizes that a lower level of funding may be necessary to conduct this initial work.
This proposal provided useful background information about the general problems affecting fish in the Klickitat watershed and a good general description of the need for the different project elements. But while it provides the technical background, rationale, and past history of activities, it provides little information on what will be done with the requested funds (for example, the major cost is for sub-contracts, but for what?). The objectives stated are very general and there was not indication about how priority activities would be determined. Beyond the general descriptions, the proposal does not offer a rationale for how the particular restoration activities were identified. At present, this proposal appears to be a placeholder (for $$) for projects that were not justified in the proposal. What is the budget based on and how do these M&E costs relate to those in project #199506325?
The absence of a Watershed Assessment Plan, as identified in our general comments, may have contributed to this very general presentation. Further, there is no information presented on the current stage of progression of existing programs.
It is difficult to reconcile support for ongoing restoration work (for which no rationale is given) in the absence of a comprehensive watershed assessment. If watershed assessment still needs to be completed then how can specific restoration measures be identified and a budget developed? If results of prior assessment work are available, then they should be presented to provide a rationale for the ongoing habitat work. It is not clear what level of watershed assessment has been done in the basin and how the results have been incorporated in proposal. Watershed inventory and monitoring are referred to in the objectives but a completed assessment was not identified.
The monitoring design and performance measures are not clear. How will success be determined? The adequacy of the budget cannot be evaluated because the limiting factors and priority restoration needs (and therefore reasonable costs) are not defined. The use of land acquisition is potentially very important but was not described in any detail.
Recommendation:
Urgent/High Priority
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Fundable on an interim basis if the funding is based on achievement of milestones. The response was barely adequate, although the response did provide limited information that describes how restoration activities were selected and partially quantifies their habitat restoration targets. The site visit showed some riparian areas that needed work but those are not described in enough detail in the proposal or response. Funding for this project should be set up with milestones. 1) they should complete the assessment and prescription plan. 2) they should set up a watershed council; 3) If they are going to use EDT, they should recognize the need to verify the preliminary results. There are several high priority on the ground activities identified that may be justified, e.g. Snyder Creek passage, but little information is given on what will be accomplished. The contract deliverables should be clearly defined in terms of what activities will be completed, i.e., area, amount, and cost of in-channel habitat structures, bank stabilization, fencing, etc., based on the delivery of a watershed assessment and prescription plan that has the habitat rehabilitation work listed by order of priority.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment:
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $397,414 |
$397,414 |
$397,414 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website
