FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200205201

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
25031 Narrative	Narrative
25031 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
25031 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Naches River Water Treatment Plant Intake Screening Project.
Proposal ID	200205201
Organization	City of Yakima (Yakima, WA)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dave Brown
Mailing address	2301 Fruitvale Blvd. Yakima, WA 98902
Phone / email	5095756204 / dbrown@ci.yakima.wa.us
Manager authorizing this project	Dueane Calvin
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Yakima
Short description	Screen City of Yakima's Naches Water Treatment Plant intake to eliminate mortality of ESA listed and non-listed salmonids at this location.
Target species	Middle Columbia River steelhead (ESA Threatened), bull trout (ESA Threatened), spring chinook, coho, resident non-salmonids

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.6865	-120.6512	The Naches WTP intake facility is located in the Naches River corridor immediately adjacent to U.S. Highway 12 approximately 7 miles upstream (northwest) from the City of Yakima and 2 miles downstream from the Town of Naches.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action 149
Action 149
Action 150
Action 151
Action 152
Action 153
Action 154
Action 155
Action 156
Action 157

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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	NMFS FCRPS 2000 BIOP Section 9.6.2.1 Actions Related to Tributary Habitat	The Naches Project addresses "Passage and diversion improvements-address in-stream obstructions and diversions that interfere with or harm listed species." as directed by NMFS.
	NMFS FCRPS 2000 BIOP RPA Action 149	The Naches Project addresses screening problems.
	The Tribal Recovery Plan (TRP)	Complementary effort - TRP seeks to rebuild salmon populations in the Yakima River system.
	The Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)	Complementary effort - Under TRP, the YKFP is a BPA effort to rebuild salmon populations in the Yakima River system.
	The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program (YRBWEP)	Complementary effort - YRBWEP is a Bureau of Reclammation effort to conserve fish habitat in the Yakima River system.
	Fish Passage and Protective Facilities Phase 2 - Yakima River Basin	Complementary effort - Existing BPA funded screening program for Yakima River system.
	The Governor's Salmon Recovery Program	Complementary effort - Statewide salmon recovery program
	Tri-Counties Planning Unit	Complementary effort - Formed under the Salmon Recovery Planning Act (ESHB 2496), Watershed Planning Act (ESHB 2514), this unit is one of two groups responsible for local implementation of the Governor's Salmon Recovery Program in the Yakima River Basin.
	Yakima Lead Entity	Complementary effort - Formed under Salmon Recovery Funding Act (2E2SSB 5595), this is the second of two groups responsible for local implementation of the Governor's Salmon Recovery Program in the Yakima River Basin.
	EPA Clean Water Act	Project will result in some slight water quality improvements to a 303(d) listed stream

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Modify Naches River WTP raw water intake to provide adequate screening for the protection of salmonids.	a. Final Engineering Design/Project Oversight	1	$382,500	Yes

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 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Modify Naches River WTP raw water intake to provide adequate screening for the protection of salmonids.	b. Construction phase of Naches WTP intake system.	1	$1,275,000	Yes

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 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost
Subcontractor	Engineering final design and construction	$1,657,500
		$1,657,500

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$1,657,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$1,657,500
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Reason for change in scope

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
City of Yakima	Project Design/Construction	$292,500	cash
City of Yakima	Project Management	$35,000	in-kind

Other budget explanation

The budget requested for the Naches WTP Screening Project represents the maximum anticipated cost of this project. A Technical Advisory Committee will be assembled to review cost effective alternatives during the Final Design Phase which may reduce total project costs below those reflected in this proposal. In addition, the proposed retirement of the PacifiCorp Wapatox Power Plant (which at this time is undecided), if completed, may allow project design modifications to further reduce overall project costs.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. An expensive project that will be needed if the retirement of Wapatox Dam occurs (proposed at this time, but not a certainty). Action will be taken by late fall 2002 regardless of funding decision. Proposed budget is $1.9 million, but speakers (Paul Wagner) indicated that the project might be done for as little as $1 million. PI's do not have alternative funding avenues identified. Diversion is for 50 cfs.

This is an extensive engineering proposal. It provides abundant linkages to the various regional planning documents, as well as to the FWP. It does not describe the magnitude of the juvenile or adult fish entrainment that occurs in its present design both under current operation and under operation if Wapatox Dam was retired. Thus, it is hard to judge the magnitude of the biological benefits of funding the project.

This project was originally submitted under the BPA FY2001 High Priority Proposal solicitation (project # 23044) and received a Category B rating from the ISRP and an A rating from CBFWA. The ISRP raised concerns that the project inadequately specified benefits to fish. PIs responded to this concern by noting that although mortality of salmonids due to entrainment into the WTP intake system has not been quantified, complete exclusion of fish from the intake system will benefit both listed and non-listed salmonids as well as resident fish. While this would clearly be true, it makes judging the magnitude of the problem and the magnitude of the potential biological benefits difficult to assess.

In the High Priority review, both the ISRP and CBFWA indicated that the proposal raised "in lieu" questions. The PI's most recent understanding was that upon NWPPC staff review, funding of this project was determined to be consistent with BPA obligations. Due to budgetary constraints, this project did not receive funding under the FY01 High Priority Proposal solicitation and is therefore being resubmitted under the current solicitation.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. This project will be needed if the retirement of Wapatox Dam occurs (proposed at this time, but not a certainty). Action will be taken by late fall 2002 regardless of funding decision. This is an extensive engineering proposal. It provides abundant linkages to the various regional planning documents, as well as to the FWP. It does not describe the magnitude of the juvenile or adult fish entrainment that occurs in its present design both under current operation and under operation if Wapatox Dam was retired. Thus, it is hard to judge the magnitude of the biological benefits of funding the project. The diversion is for 50 cfs.

Proposed budget is $1.9 million, but speakers (Paul Wagner) indicated that the project might be done for as little as $1 million. PI's do not have alternative funding avenues identified.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project would prevent entrainment of juvenile sthd into city intake when city of Yakima is diverting water from Naches River rather than diverting from power canal

Comments
Most of the cost is to increase security of City water supply by diverting water upstream of canal discharge. Canal is bordered by orchard and City is concerned about potential chemical contamination of water supply. If focus is fish, BPA funds should cover only the installation of screens, not other retrofits.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank D

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This proposal was considered under BPA’s Action Plan solicitation earlier this year as proposal no. 23044.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment: