FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29031

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
Response in Opposition from Okanogan Wilderness League	Response
29031 Narrative	Narrative
29031 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
29031 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Out Year Operations and Maintenance Costs Required to Implement/Carry out MVID Rehabilitation Project
Proposal ID	29031
Organization	Yakama Nation (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Director
Mailing address	PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email	5098655121 / lynn@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project	Lynn Hatcher
Review cycle	Columbia Cascade
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Cascade / Methow
Short description	Proposal requests O & M support for MVID Rehabitation Project (MVID_RP). Assured long-term funding for O&M costs is essential for MVID_RP completion and realization of its water conservation, in-stream flow and habitat benefits.
Target species	spring chinook, summer steelhead. bulltrout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
48.3717	-120.1783	Lower Twisp River and Methow River near confluence

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 149
Action 150
Action 152

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 149	NMFS	BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199603401	Methow Valley Irrigation District Rehabilitation Project: Rehabilitation of MVID's distributing system and mitigation of remaining environmental concerns associated with the system.	This proposal requests support of the O & M costs associated with the MVID Rehabilitation project. Without funds for O & M costs, the implementation of the MVID Rehabiliation project is in jeopardy
	Replacement of laterals needed to promote water conservation	This subcontract of the MVID Rehabiliatioin project has been completed. The O &M costs requested will help assure that the maximum benefits are realized from this project.
	Development of conceptual plan for MVID Rehabiliation Project	A conceptual plan for a revised MVID Rehabilitation project was prepared by Fred Ziari. O & M funds requested are required for the results of this work to be realized.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
not applicable			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
not applicable			$0

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
not applicable			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
not applicable			$0

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Provide power to new MVID system implemented through MVID rehabilitation project in order to conserve water, protect/restore habitat and provide instream flow	2004	2007	$120,000
2. Fund operation/maintenance/repair of new MVID system referenced above	2004	2007	$60,000
3. Replacement of pumping stations and all related infrastructures at end of first 20-25 years fo the MVID rehabitated system	2004	2007	$60,000

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$60,000	$60,000	$60,000	$60,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 1. Assess habitat conditions for salmonids and salmonid usage below the MVID West diversion.	2004	2006	$20,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$10,000	$5,000	$5,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
		$0

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$0
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$0
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This project is a logical extension of the existing project (199603491), rather than a new project. It is unclear whether the ongoing project will be implemented. The proposal is for out year costs, not FY 2003. It is anticipated that the pumping station will be constructed by 2004 as a product of the NWPPC mandated facilitation process with the Methow Valley Irrigation District and WDOE, BPA, the Yakama Nation, NMFS, WDFW, and the Colville Tribe. Pumping would replace a push-up dam in the Twisp River and reduce use of Methow River water as a result of a new distribution system. The present proposal is tied to installation and construction of the pumping station and distribution system in that the MVID will only agree to the change in their withdrawal system if the operating and maintenance costs are covered. Approval of this proposal would provide the guarantee that the MVID seeks for covering the O&M costs.

Procedures for implementation monitoring need to be described in detail as part of the O&M project. Objectives 2 and 3 include long-term monitoring and evaluation methods that are not adequately described. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified to ensure that statistical inferences can be drawn to the study areas. For example, it is not sufficient to say that the "The Hankin and Reeves (1988) methodology will be used to measure and record data."

What are the potential fish benefits from this project?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

M&E not adequately described and may be funded from other sources if project goes forward. Funding may not be needed. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Not Fundable. The response was not adequate. The proposal is incomplete because a final design is not available. This proposal may need to be submitted anew (and separate from the provincial review) now that a settlement has been reached with NMFS over MVID's system.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments: A response is needed. This project is a logical extension of the existing project (199603491), rather than a new project. It is unclear whether the ongoing project will be implemented. The proposal is for out year costs, not FY 2003. It is anticipated that the pumping station will be constructed by 2004 as a product of the NWPPC mandated facilitation process with the Methow Valley Irrigation District and WDOE, BPA, the Yakama Nation, NMFS, WDFW, and the Colville Tribe. Pumping would replace a push-up dam in the Twisp River and reduce use of Methow River water as a result of a new distribution system. The present proposal is tied to installation and construction of the pumping station and distribution system in that the MVID will only agree to the change in their withdrawal system if the operating and maintenance costs are covered. Approval of this proposal would provide the guarantee that the MVID seeks for covering the O&M costs.

What are the potential fish benefits from this project?

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project could substantially improve summer flow conditions in the lower 4 miles of the Twisp River and replace two problematic irrigation diversions with structures that would better enable fish passage across a range of flows. Project could result in increased spawning and rearing survival rates.

Comments
Proposal is a placeholder pending final agreement on the configuration of this conservation project. Project has been in the Council's program since 1996. While BOR is expected to play a substantial role in resolving flow and passage problems in the Methow, in that this project has been under consideration so long that it may be best to retain as BPA responsibility. Funding, however, should be contingent on the final agreement including substantial gains in Twisp River flows.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
n/a

Date:
Jul 26, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. Should be considered in context of existing projects.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: