FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 26034

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleKittitas Valley Reach Acquisitions
Proposal ID26034
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBrent Renfrow
Mailing address201 N. Pearl St. Ellensburg, WA 98926
Phone / email5099251013 / renfrbr@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this projectTed Clausing
Review cycleFY 2001 Action Plan
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionConservation purchases of key Yakima River floodplain properties in the Kittitas Valley reach.
Target specieschinook, coho, steelhead, bull trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.9599 -120.9599 T17N, R18E, S3,4,10,11,14,24,25
46.9786 -120.719 T18N, R17E, S19,29,30,32,33
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Floodplain continuity in the Kittas Valley Reach of the Yakima River Purchase of properties identified in the Snyder/Stanford "Reaches" Report 12 $2,000,000
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2002FY 2003
$69,000$69,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2001 cost
Capital Lands Purchase $2,000,000
$2,000,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost$2,000,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2001 budget request$2,000,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
The Nature Conservancy/Yakama Nation Appraisals $10,000 in-kind
WDFW Appraisal Reviews/Environ. Review Report $9,000 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Do not fund - inadequate proposal
Date:
Jun 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable; inadequate proposal. This is a brief proposal for property and/or water right acquisitions in the Yakima River floodplain that leaves many unanswered questions about satisfying the solicitation criteria. The Stanford upwelling rationale for habitat value is given in the abstract but not discussed in the text. Species affected are mentioned (chinook, coho, steelhead, bull trout), but not identified as ESA listed or how they might be affected. Neither the justification nor rationale sections of the proposal even refer to the solicitation criteria. The purchases could be one-time funding but whether purchase alone will affect fish soon is not clear. Although a map was provided, the properties were not adequately described in the material reviewed. The distribution of land purchase versus water right purchase (both together?) was not adequately described. Water right purchase might add tributary flow (thus satisfying one of the four functional criteria), but this is not stated. The references consist mostly of personal communications. Resumes are not provided for staff (only names and jobs). Although the purchases might be worthwhile, the proposal is not an adequate justification for funding them under this solicitation.
Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable, inadequate proposal and response. This proposal does not tightly meet the Action Plan criteria, as the primary objective of the proposal is for land acquisition. Unlike the other land acquisition proposals reviewed for this memo, this proposal does offer immediate flow increases as requested in the Action Plan solicitation. However, the proposal and response are brief and lacking in sufficient detail for the technical review that the ISRP usually conducts. Specifically, although flow increases would be provided (600 acre-feet), that increase is not stated within the context of present discharge levels. Will 600 acre-feet produce a significant increase in existing flow? What are current summer low flows and what will the 600 acre-feet add?

Moreover, the brief response leaves the ISRP to take brief statements on face value. For example, "Willing sellers have been identified for a fee simple purchase." The monitoring plan is to "Monitor: Stream surveys, redd counts, measure restoration success." If funded, Council should review results of final negotiations carefully before release of funds and should require detailed operation and management and monitoring and evaluation plans that are consistent and at a finer scale than monitoring projects funded through the Columbia Plateau Province review. This proposal would have been more appropriate for the Columbia Plateau review, but it was not submitted under that solicitation.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 14, 2001

Comment:

In Bonneville's letter of July 12, Robert Austin informed the Council that Bonneville determined that land acquisition proposals do not fit the Action Plan solicitation and should be reviewed in the appropriate provincial review. With that position taken, the Council did not review these proposals further. The Council did review a similar proposal; 23084, Acquisition of Lower Desolation Creek, John Day Basin. The Council recommended the proposal for funding. The distinction found by the Council is that the proposal carries water quantity benefits that were sought by the Action Plan solicitation.