Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Klickitat Watershed and Habitat Enhancement Project |
| Proposal ID | 21028 |
| 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 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Melvin Sampson |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Klickitat |
| Short description | This 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 species | steelhead, chinook salmon, coho salmon, Oregon white oak, Columbia blacktail deer |
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 |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $100,000 | $105,000 | $110,000 | $115,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $2,800,000 | $3,000,000 | $3,200,000 | $2,800,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $80,000 | $130,000 | $165,000 | $190,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $20,000 | $25,000 | $30,000 | $40,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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:
- the proposal has not been integrated with other Klickitat proposals (as noted above),
- it lacks specific actions to evaluate, and
- 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:
- the proposal has not been integrated with other Klickitat proposals (as noted above),
- it lacks specific actions to evaluate, and
- 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: