Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Inventory and Restore Beaver and Beaver Habitats |
| Proposal ID | 21026 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | William P. Bradley |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / bradley@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | William P. Bradley |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Klickitat |
| Short description | Inventory and restore beaver populations and habitats to the upper portion of the subbasin to restore the array of functions that beaver provide for the watershed. |
| Target species | Beaver, Steelhead, Spring chinook, Fall chinook, Coho salmon, West-slope cutthroat, sandhill cranes, amphibians, and other wetland and riparian associated species |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.09 |
-121.15 |
Klickitat Subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
|
New project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Klickitat Watershed and Habitat Enhancement Project |
Lands acquired under this project would undergo beaver and beaver habitat restoration, where appropriate. Additionally, the inventory phase of the beaver project would assist in prioritization of land acquisitions.
|
| 199701725 |
YKFP - Design and construction |
Beaver 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
|
Beaver 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.
|
| 198812025 |
YKFP - Management, Habitat and Data
|
Beaver 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.
|
| 9705600 |
Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project |
Beaver restoration provides a habitat and water quality restoration complement in the upper portions of the subbasin, thus enhancing conditions for fish and wildlife throughout the entire subbasin
|
|
Inventory and Assess Amphibian Populations in the Klickitat Subbasin |
Inventory of beaver habitat would assist in focusing on habitats for amphibian inventory, beaver habitat restoration would crea amphibian habitat,monitoring of amphibians can provide a baseline for monitoring effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts
|
| 199812025 |
YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation |
Baseline data collection under the YKFP project can be used to evaluate habitat for beaver suitability, YKFP crews would be available for beaver restoration monitoring, and for monitoring fish utilization of newly developed beaver habitat |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Inventory beaver habitats
|
a. Create a data base of historic, current and future potential habitats
|
10 |
$51,500 |
|
| 2. Identify and prioritize streams for restoration
|
a. Create a prioritization process for restoration of habitats within a watershed
|
10 |
$14,000 |
|
| 3. Plan restoration |
a. Design management activities to restore habitats on stream systems |
12 |
$42,500 |
|
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 |
|---|
| $88,000 | $78,000 | $78,000 | $78,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Restore habitats
|
a. Implement management activities
|
15 |
$41,440 |
|
| 2. Re-introduce beaver |
a. Live-trap beaver |
15 |
$15,000 |
|
|
b. Transplant beaver |
15 |
$4,000 |
|
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 |
|---|
| $80,000 | $90,000 | $90,000 | $90,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Maintain beaver and habitat restoration efforts |
a. Maintain habitat restoration efforts |
15 |
$4,000 |
|
|
b. Maintain beaver restoration efforts |
15 |
$4,000 |
|
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 |
|---|
| $18,000 | $18,000 | $18,000 | $18,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Monitor restoration effectiveness and beaver use |
a. Monitor effectiveness of restoration activities
|
15 |
$26,000 |
|
|
b. Monitor beaver use |
15 |
$3,000 |
|
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 |
|---|
| $49,000 | $49,000 | $49,000 | $49,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1.83 (Professional level)
0.83 (Technician level) |
$100,000 |
| Fringe |
@25.3% |
$25,300 |
| Supplies |
GSA vehicles, GPS units, water and vegetation measurement supplies, traps, radio-transmitters |
$35,000 |
| Travel |
|
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
@23.5% |
$38,140 |
| NEPA |
|
$5,000 |
| $205,440 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $205,440 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $205,440 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or 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 the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. This proposal should not be funded as an individual project. This should be one of the tools among the suite of tools used for watershed rehabilitation in the subbasin. Consider integrating this proposal with #199705600 Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project.
From the perspective of ecosystem function and as a means to restore riparian wetland function along streams, this is an interesting proposal. This proposal does a reasonable job outlining why the restoration of beaver habitat would be beneficial to watershed function, but its approach is less clear. The primary uncertainty is how it builds on previous beaver restoration work (earlier projects listed), what it will do to complement existing work, and why beaver have not re-colonized naturally. The objectives and methods need to be presented in more detail. For example, how will the historical database be used, and what are the limits on the relevance of historical data under current conditions? How will the prioritization of habitat restoration be done? How will the results of these introductions be assessed and against what comparative basis?
The review panel questioned the reason for introduction since the salmonid most likely to benefit from these habitats are coho salmon ... which do not use the upper Klickitat drainage. Further, it is very possible that beaver ponds and the associated habitat would encourage brook trout expansion which is likely not desirable.
Finally, why is beaver restoration related to "fully mitigating for wildlife losses from hydropower"? The loss of beaver is not likely to be closely associated with the hydrosystem, is this proposal then appropriate to this funding source? If the re-introduction is proposed as an ecosystem restoration study or technique, then we can accept that argument. However, if beavers are a means to restore riparian wetlands and store water, then the cost of such programs are appropriately included in the KFP habitat restoration projects. The two proposals will be linked already since mapping and habitat assessment are needed to determine sites for introduction.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
FY 01 Budget Review Comments: 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:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Do not fund, the project design was not provided in adequate detail. The reviewers were concerned that there was not more information on the source and size of the proposed beaver population. With a better project design, this project would be fundable as a small pilot project (with a reduced budget) in an area where the likelihood of success is reasonable in the upper watershed, and where the response benefits can be monitored. A point-by-point response to the ISRP comments was provided that the reviewers reacted positively to even though they had major reservations about the original proposal. The limitations of the project were recognized, including the need to integrate this work into an overall watershed assessment and prescription plan. The past and potential role of beavers should be considered as part of the watershed assessment. The anticipated benefits to steelhead are questionable since they do not prefer slow pond-like habitat and are generally found in the mainstem of third-order streams or larger.
Although the potential for brook trout expansion is addressed through selection criteria for sites, reviewers were troubled by the comment on brook trout indicating that stream gradient would likely preclude brook trout immigration. The proposers should refer to recent work in Montana (Adams et al., Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, May 2000) indicating that channel slopes of up to 13% do not ensure against upstream dispersal of brook trout. They should also consider the extensive literature on beaver management and problems that may evolve.
The ISRP comment on rolling the project into the rehabilitation proposal was directed at the need for a watershed assessment to show that this kind of activity is a priority.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment: