200711200 - Teanaway Watershed - Protect critical habitat from development, reduce water temperatures and increase instream flows, restore habitat forming processes in the floodplain
Sponsor: Kittitas Conservation Trust
Budgets: FY07: $828,000 | FY08: $724,000 | FY09: $492,000
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.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Capital
Recommended budgets: FY07: $1,024,000 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
Comment: Address ISRP concerns during contracting. See also habitat m&e programmatic issue in decision memo.
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $340,000 | FY08: $340,000 | FY09: $340,000
Comment: Address ISRP concerns during contracting. See also Programmatic Issue: habitat m&e.
ISRP final recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
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.
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)