Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (Objective 1: Early Actions) |
| Proposal ID | 200202500 |
| Organization | Kittitas County Water Purveyors (on behalf of KCWP, US Bureau of Reclamation, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Kittitas County Conservation District, North Yakima Conservation District and Ahtanum Irrigation District). (KCWP) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Carol A. Ready, M.S. |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 276 (315 N Water St) Ellensburg, WA 98926 |
| Phone / email | 5099256158 / krdwq@elltel.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Pat Clerf, KCWP Chairman |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Implement YTAHP Objective 1: Early Actions which include fish enhancements (fish passagescreens and riparian habitat) at selected high priority locations on Yakima tributaries through a collaborative approach of local, state, federal & tribal interests. |
| Target species | Steelhead (NMFS ESA listed species), Bull Trout (USFWS listed); also coho, chinook, resident rainbow and cutthroat trout. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.988 |
-120.538 |
City of Ellensburg, nearest city to Kittitas County tributaries. |
| 46.6013 |
-120.5028 |
City of Yakima, nearest City to Yakima County tributaries. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Implement Early Action Items |
a. Work with stakeholders, characterize barrier/screen needs, obtain permits applications, complete design work, as needed. |
12-24 |
$288,000 |
|
|
b. Manufacture/construct facilities. |
|
$800,000 |
Yes |
|
c. Install, initiate operation of facilities. |
|
$400,000 |
Yes |
|
d. Provide habitat assistance |
|
$100,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 3 |
$185,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$60,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$15,000 |
| Travel |
|
$8,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$40,000 |
| Capital |
None anticipated |
$0 |
| NEPA |
0 |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
|
$1,200,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Habitat assistance (trees, fencing, other) |
$80,000 |
| $1,588,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $1,588,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $1,588,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Kittitas County Conservation District |
Lanowner coordination, prelim survey, design |
$30,000 |
in-kind |
| WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife |
Design and habitat assistance, permits |
$35,000 |
in-kind |
| Bureauof Reclamation |
Design expertise, program management |
$40,000 |
in-kind |
| Kittitas County Water Purveyors |
Outreach, education, coordination |
$10,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Defer to Provincial Review
Date:
Jun 21, 2001
Comment:
Defer to the Columbia River Plateau Review Process, in which the ISRP requested a response. This proposal does not meet the criteria for funding under this action. Specific one-time projects are not clearly identified and it is not obvious that they could be put in place and completed this season. Thus, immediate on-the-ground benefits cannot be estimated. The proposal identifies long-term O&M costs to be covered by BPA and Mitchell Act funds. Due to the ISRP concerns expressed in the Columbia Plateau review, the planning elements in the proposal, and the long-term nature of this project, the ISRP recommends that funding not be expedited in the Action Plan process but be deferred to the Columbia Plateau process.
ISRP comments from the Columbia Plateau Review are:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This project would clearly contribute to the goal of salmonid (especially steelhead and bull trout) recovery in the Yakima basin. Its primary strength is the day-to-day contact of KCWP staff with landowners of Kittitas and Yakima counties, as well as its established track record of cooperation with federal agencies and the Yakama Nation. However, its priority is difficult to assess in the absence of supporting information on existing fish resources and gains that might be realized if the diversion-screening program were to be initiated.
What is the magnitude of potential fish benefits? What is the relative priority of this in the basin? How important are the Phase III screens, since the Phase I and II screens have been and are currently being addressed?
While there is no doubt that restoration of tributary habitats and flow in these counties are of benefit to fish, this project will be very expensive (over 2 million per year, each of 5 years) and has little cost sharing. BPA and the Council should consider creating a cost share requirement for this type of restoration that addresses an obvious agricultural impact source.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 3, 2001
Comment:
The ISRP review team found this proposal to be fundable in the Columbia Plateau review process. The response was very clear and showed that considerable effort went into its preparation. The proposal offers passage improvements that will likely benefit stocks targeted under the solicitation as specified in the Action Plan criteria. However, the proposal does not tightly fit the Action Plan criteria because it does not appear that actions will be achieved immediately in 2001. This project is most appropriately reviewed and selected for funding during the Columbia Plateau Province review where it can be evaluated relative to other competing proposals in the subbasin.
The ISRP's final comments from the Columbia Plateau Review:
Fundable. The well-written response to ISRP queries was helpful in clarifying how this large (and costly) proposed program, which has the potential to increase production of both anadromous and resident fish in several hundred miles of Yakima River tributaries, should be prioritized. Although the panel recognizes that it is not possible to precisely quantify the magnitude of potential fish benefits at this time, it views the effort as worthy of support.
Reasons for that support include:
- the pro-active approach of KCWP staff and the organization's established track record of cooperation with federal agencies and the Yakama Nation,
- the belief, based on experience elsewhere, that such a project should further bring together a variety of stakeholders, especially landowners, in a cooperative effort to restore fish passage and rearing,
- evidence that there will be cost sharing by KCWP participants, and evidence of a substantial commitment from the Yakama Nation, provided in the response to ISRP comments on project 199803400, to coordinate with KCWP to maximize fish benefits while minimizing project cost. Specifically, tributaries will be prioritized using a combination of EDT analysis and professional experience and judgment, the YN program to identify blocked and unscreened diversions will continue in coordination with KCWP, and YN staff indicate a willingness to attend monthly coordination meetings.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 14, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 18, 2002
Comment:
