FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200202501
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program: Proposed Budget | Narrative Attachment |
| Estimate on Diversions Screened, Total Flow and Cost | Narrative Attachment |
| Resumes for R. Dennis Hudson, Eric B. Egbers, Carol A. Ready, George D. Marshall, Anna Lael, and Michael Tobin | Narrative Attachment |
| 25026 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25026 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25026 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Memo from S. Horton and M. Fritsch (NPCC) to Council Members RE: Briefing paper on project 200202500 (proposal 25026) prior to recommendation vote by council | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP) |
| Proposal ID | 200202501 |
| Organization | Kittitas County Water Purveyors (for KCWP, Kittitas County Conservation District, North Yakima Conservation District, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Bureau of Reclamation and Ahtanum Irrigation District) (KCWP) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Carol A. Ready, M.S. |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 276 (315 North Water) Ellensburg, WA 98926 |
| Phone / email | 5099256158 / krdwq@elltel.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | Pat Clerf, KCWP Chairman |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Implement fish enhancements (fish passage, screens and riparian habitat) on Yakima tributaries based on prioritized schedule developed through a collaborative approach of local, state, federal and tribal interests. Conduct early actions in 2002. |
| Target species | Steelhead (NMFS ESA listed species), Bull Trout (USFWS listed); also coho, chinook, resident rainbow and cutthroat trout. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Yakima River Basin tributaries in Yakima and Kittitas Counties (WRIAs 37, 38, 39) from approximately Ahtanum Creek to Big Creek at multiple locations. | ||
| 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)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2000-2001 | KCWP Water Quality monitoring at 27 sites for temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended sediments, bacteria, pH, specific conductivity, flow and loading, including creeks, diversions and tailend spills (under 2-year state Ecology grant). |
| 2000 | KCWP - Fish Screening Workshop for individuals with surface water diversions to understand ESA requirements, permits, engineering, technical and financial assistance. |
| 2000 | KCWP - 3,300 Water Line newsletters distributed to inform landowners of ESA and CWA requirements. |
| 2001 | KCCD - Resource Evaluation, Management & Education Project. A 2-year 80K project including stream temperature monitoring, instream flow evalutions, cost share for erosion control and research into resource related regulations & potential funding sources. |
| 2000 | KCCD -Kittitas Water Quality & Water Conservation Project. A 4-year $209K project including water quality and quantity monitoring on-farm and off in the Cherry Creek watershed, on-farm demonstrations of new technologies, and various education & outreach. |
| 1999 | KCCD - Upper Yakima River Watershed Report. A 6-year project that included analysis of the watershed and a prioritization of needed actions. Top three sub basins were Wilson/Cherry Creeks, Teanawy River and Manastash/Taneum Creeks. |
| 2000-2001 | KCCD - DNA analysis of bacterial sources to Kittitas County creeks. |
| 2000 | KCCD - inititated landowner outreach on surface water diversion screening and barrier removal. Has more than 50 diversions with new or upgrade screen needs. |
| 1992-2003 | USBOR Phase II program is an extension of the Phase I program aidmed at correcting fish passage conditions at about 60 smaller diversions in the Yakima Basin. |
| 1983-1990 | USBOR Phase I fish passage program corrected passage conditions at about 16 major diversion in the Yakima River Basin. |
| 1998-2002 | NYCD Water Quality Monitoring Program: 4 tributaries and 1 drain for temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity (25 sites). Data will assist in targetting expenditures to improve local fisheries and track water quality improvements. |
| 1994-2001 | NYCD Moxee Drain Irrigated Ag BMP Implementation Project: provided technical, financial, and educational services to Moxee Watershed to reduce sediment load to Yakima River. NYCD managed this multi-million dollar program which has reduced sediment by 68%. |
| 2000-2002 | NYCD Riparian Restoration Program: managed by NYCD will implement 24,900 total feet of riparian buffers (4.7 miles) on privately held lands within the District. The Buffers will meet Natural Resources Conservation Services standards and specs. |
| 2000-2002 | NYCD Fish screen riparian restoration program: MOA between the BOR and NYCD to implement riparian buffers at constructed fish screen sites (Phase II funding). To date, six fish screen sites have been implemented with riparian buffers. |
| 1989-1994 | NYCD assisted the AID, Naches-Selah Irrigation District, and the Selah-Moxee Irrigation District in preparing comprehensive water conservation plans funded through the Dept of Ecology. NYCD assisting districts in finding funding for conservation efforts. |
| 1992-2001 | WDFW - The Yakima Screen Shop (YSS) has been completed shop fabrication, delivery and field installation for screens, fish bypass systems and other work for 34 or 66 prioritized BPA Phase II water diversions. |
| 1986-1990 | WDFW - The YSS has built ish screens and associated metal work for BPA for Phase I. |
| 1992-2003 | WDFW - YSS has been conducting O/M on Phase II screens. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199107500 | Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction (BOR) | This proposal plans to use the Phase II technical workgroup or one of very similar makeup to act as technical reviewers on screen and passage permitting, design, construction and installation. |
| 199105700 | Yakima Phase 2 Screen Fabrication (WDFW) | WDFW, YSS fabricates and installs fish screens and miscellaneous metalwork for Yakima Basin Phase II screening projects. New fish screens prevent mortality and/or injury to all life stages of anadromous and resident fish in irrigation diversions. |
| 199503300 | Yakima Phase II - O/M for Fish Facilities (BOR) | BOR performs preventative and emergency maintenance and operational adjustment on completed Phase II fish screen facilities. |
| 199200900 | Yakima Phase 2 -O&M Fish Screens | WDFW, YSS performs preventative and emergency maintenance and operational adjustment on completed Phase II fish screen facilities to assure optimal fish protection performance and to extend facility life, thereby protecting BPA's capital investment. |
| 198506200 | Passage Improvement Evaluation (PNNL) | Fishery scientists from the Pacific Northwest Labs (PNNL) periodically evaluate completed screening projects. Independent evaluation, both hydraulic and biological, by an independent third party not directly involved in screen construction or O&M. |
| 9803400 | Reestablish Safe Access into Tributaries of Yakima Subbasin | The KCWP proposal complements this existing program designed to reconnect more than 100 miles of habitat in ten tributaries that have adequate flow by building fishways and screens at human-made barriers. |
| Yakama Nation - Yakima / Klickitat Fisheries Program | Creates access to additional and safer habitat for fish introduced through YN supplementation efforts. | |
| 477 | Teanaway, KCCD | Expands on the irrigation and habitat improvements that occurred in the Teanaway watershed. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Complete Stategic Plan | a - c. Select managing entity. Prepare final draft, distribute for comments, address comments. Finalize Strategic Plan, distribute. | 2002-03 | $17,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Complete Strategic Plan | 2003 | $17,500 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $17,500 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Early Action Items | a. Outreach to landowners, prepare draft permit submittals. | 2002-05 | $220,000 | |
| b. Complete design work, manufacture and construct screens and other necessary elements to address early action projects. | 2002-05 | $1,000,000 | Yes | |
| c. Install, initiate operation of facilities for early action projects. | 2002-05 | $260,000 | Yes | |
| 3. Restore Salmonid Access | a. Conduct tributary surveys to identify and characterize existing barriers. | 2002-06 | $40,260 | |
| b. Prepare tributary plans. | $20,000 | |||
| c. Implement tributary work plans (engineering, permits, construct and install facilities.) | 2002-06 | $360,000 | Yes | |
| 4. Habitat Opportunities | a. Provide outreach and education to landowners. | 2002-06 | $15,000 | |
| b. Provide technical assistance to landowners. | 2002-06 | $20,000 | ||
| c. Provide financial assistance to landowenrs to implement projects identified through outreach/technical assistance. | 2002-06 | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Early Action Items | 2003 | 2005 | $3,830,000 |
| 3. Restore Salmonid Access (implement tributary work plans) | 2003 | 2006 | $5,480,000 |
| 4. Habitat Opportunities | 2003 | 2006 | $395,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2,215,000 | $2,600,000 | $2,650,000 | $2,240,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Restore Salmonid Access | a. O/M on installed screens | 2002-06 | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Restore Salmonid Access (O/M on installed screens) | 2003 | 2006 | $80,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Restore Salmonid Access | a. Monitor progress (annual status report, and track project installation). | 2002-06 | $20,000 | |
| 4. Habitat Opportunities | a. Monitor condition and operation of improvements (interview and visual inspection 1 to 2 years after implementation). | 2002-06 | $10,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Restore Salmonid Access (monitoring) | 2003 | 2006 | $40,000 |
| 4. Habitat opportunities (monitor condition/operation). | 2003 | 2006 | $40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 8.3 | $508,500 |
| Fringe | $169,500 | |
| Supplies | $21,714 | |
| Travel | $14,476 | |
| Indirect | $108,570 | |
| Subcontractor | The percent of work to be performed by BOR, WDFW and subcontractor is undetermined. | $1,200,000 |
| $2,022,760 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $2,022,760 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $2,022,760 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| KCWP | 0.2 FTE | $12,000 | in-kind |
| NYCD | 0.2 FTE | $12,000 | in-kind |
| KCCD | 0.2 FTE | $12,000 | in-kind |
| BOR | 1.0 FTE | $80,000 | in-kind |
| WDFW | 0.6 FTE | $36,000 | in-kind |
| AID | 0.2 FTE, heavy equipment | $20,000 | in-kind |
| Multiple | Possible in-kind from other habitat programs such as CREP, local lands dedicated to habitat. | $0 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
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 is 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, 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.
REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
High Priority (Objective 2 only)
High Priority (Objective 2 only)
Date:
Aug 3, 2001
Aug 3, 2001
Comment:
It is good to see the local stakeholders taking an initiative to address the needs within this watershed. Coordination with co-managers has recently begun and needs to continue. The budget seems extremely high for the initiation of a new project. Until an implementation plan has been developed, it may be inappropriate to provide implementation funding. Fund Objective 2 only (i.e.. complete strategic plan). Once the plan has been completed, re-apply for implementation funds. We suggest partnering with the YIN in the Wilson Creek project. Implementation plan should be developed in concert with the area fish and wildlife co-managers. Implementation activities should be considered a "Recommended Action" until a plan has been completed and should be coordinated with the Yakima Nation prior to funding.Comment:
Fundable as specified by CBFWA. The response was very clear and showed that considerable effort went into its preparation. In addition, the proposal offers passage improvements that will likely benefit stocks targeted in the Action Plan solicitation. 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 costsharing by KCWP participants, and evidence of a substantial commitment from the Yakama Nation, provided in the response to ISRP comments on project a href=199803400.htm>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.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUambitious project to screen and provide passage over hundreds of unscreened diversions in the Kittitas Valley. Steelhead may benefit greatly by gaining safe access to the Wilson/Nanum system. It is unclear, however, if the proposal will be able to ensure that all diversions in newly accessible reaches will be screened.
Comments
Project may be too ambitious in early phases. Suggest partnering with YIN on their Wilson Creek project, and developing an implementation plan in concert with basin fish managers.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
Focuses on opening blocked habitat. May fund strategic planning at this time. However, we suggest that subbasin planning be used to identify priorities to evaluate the implementation phase of this project.Comment:
Comment:
BPA intends to fund this project in FY02 under the Action Plan; this proposal also came in under the Plateau Province Review; FY02 funding will be limited to no more than $730,000 for completion of planning and specified implementation activities that can be completed by September 30, 2002. The council recommended FY03 and FY04 funding for this proposal.Comment:
Action Plan in 03, provincial review funding in 03 and 04. Accruals on pace and project tracking well. CAPITAL. Fish screening, barrier removal and habitat enhancement.Comment:
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
capital
capital
Date:
May 2005
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $880,000 | $880,000 | $880,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website