Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-112-00 - Teanaway River Watershed Protection Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-112-00 - Teanaway River Watershed Protection
Project Number:
Teanaway River Watershed Protection
Abstract - Project Summary

Kittitas Conservation Trust proposes to acquire riparian conservation easements to protect fish and wildlife habitat on both sides of 6.7 miles of streams in the Teanaway River watershed. Habitat protection actions are needed to protect an $8 million investment by BPA from an immediate and unprecedented threat: habitat fragmentation and degradation caused by conversion of critical floodplains to residential development.

Demand for recreational residential parcels in Northern Kittitas County, and specifically the Teanaway watershed, has intensified dramatically, fueled by market pressures from the Puget Sound metroplex.

Conservation easement protection will be accompanied by key restoration actions to address aquatic habitat limiting factors on a watershed scale: acquire water to augment instream flows, revegetate the riparian zone to create shade and reduce water temperatures, install LWD to facilitate bank stabilization and enhance instream habitat complexity. Barriers to fish passage into tributary habitat will be cured with site-specific solutions. Recovery of riparian habitat complexity will be keyed to the natural restorative processes at work in the Teanaway.

This project will protect critical habitat for Mid Columbia Steelhead, Spring Chinook salmon, and resident species including bull trout and west-slope cutthroat. The conservation easement objectives include protection of floodplain habitat in perpetuity by purchasing development rights.

Habitat protection efforts on the North Fork Teanaway, the largest of the three forks, began in 2005 with funding from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Phase-1 negotiations with American Forest Resources have progressed to the appraisal stage for 95 acres along 1.6 river miles. The entire N. Fk. Teanaway project goal encompasses floodplain protection along 6.7 river miles up to the National Forest boundary. Riparian easement protections in the Teanaway watershed complement an emerging Habitat Conservation Plan in the upland forests for Northern Spotted Owl habitat.

The project features collaboration among public, private, and tribal stakeholders.
Proponent Orgs:
Kittitas Conservation Trust (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Yakima 100.00%
Focal Species:
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2010 $322,621 100%
2009 $577,634 40%
2008 $9,290 5%
2007 $28,352 100%


The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-004804 Bonneville Power Administration FY08 Teanaway River Watershed Land Acquisition Active $130,000 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
36167 SOW Kittitas Conservation Trust 200711200 EXP TEANAWAY R WATERSHED PROTECTION - LAND ASSESSMENT History $30,000 1/7/2008 - 9/30/2008
42421 SOW Kittitas County Conservation District 200711200 EXP TEANAWAY R. RIPARIAN ENHANC. AT JACK & INDIAN CK History $213,319 2/25/2009 - 9/30/2012
43689 SOW Kittitas Conservation Trust 200711200 EXP CLE ELUM AND LOWER SWAUK HABITAT PROTECTION History $543,336 8/1/2009 - 5/31/2011

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):3
On time:3
Status Reports
On time:6
Avg Days Late:42

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-4804 FY08 Teanaway River Watershed Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2007 09/30/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36167 43689 200711200 EXP CLE ELUM AND LOWER SWAUK HABITAT PROTECTION Kittitas Conservation Trust 01/07/2008 05/31/2011 History 10 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 3
42421 200711200 EXP TEANAWAY R. RIPARIAN ENHANC. AT JACK & INDIAN CK Kittitas County Conservation District 02/25/2009 09/30/2012 History 14 7 0 0 2 9 77.78% 0
Project Totals 24 15 0 0 2 17 88.24% 3

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-112-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-112-00 - Teanaway River Watershed Protection
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Address ISRP concerns during contracting. See also Programmatic Issue: habitat m&e.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-112-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-112-00 - Teanaway River Watershed Protection
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-112-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-112-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Riparian conservation easements.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-112-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-112-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
David Gerth (Inactive) Project Lead Kittitas Conservation Trust
Jeff Tayer Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Jay Marcotte (Inactive) Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Dawn Boorse (Inactive) Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Anna Lael Project Lead Kittitas County Conservation District