FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200203800
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 |
|---|---|
| 25100 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25100 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat |
| Proposal ID | 200203800 |
| Organization | City of Yakima (Yakima, WA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dueane Calvin, Water & Irrigation Manager |
| Mailing address | 2301 Fruitvale Blvd Yakima, WA 98902 |
| Phone / email | 5095766480 / dcalvin@ci.yakima.wa.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Acquisition of lands for: protection of aquatic/terrestrial habitat; improvements of water quality; reconnection of the flood plain; restoration/protection of the riparian habitat and antural hydrologic regime. |
| Target species | Middle Columbia River summer steelhead; Spring and Fall Chinook; Coho. State Endangered and/or Threatened Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insects within the Yakima Subbasin. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Approximate West boundary of area included in this project | ||
| Approximate East boundary of area included in this project | ||
| Approximate North boundary of area included in this project | ||
| Approximate South boundary of area included in this project | ||
| 46.6 | -120.5 | area in Yakima subbasin |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1985 | Naches-Cowiche Ladder and Screen |
| 1993 | City of Yakima - DRAFT Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan |
| 1996 | Fruitvale Screen |
| 1997 | Union Gap Screen |
| 2000 | City of Yakima Screen Bypass Modifications |
| Unk | WDFW Wide Hollow Creek Diversion Dam at Perry Technical Institute |
| Ongoing | BOR Environmental Teacher Training Program - Sportsman Park Nature Trail |
| Ongoing | BOR Environmental Teacher Training Program - Cowiche Creek |
| Ongoing | BOR Environmental Teacher Training Program - Powerhouse Nature Trail |
| Ongoing | BOR Enviornmental Teacher Training Program - Highland High School |
| Ongoing | BOR Environmental Teacher Training Program - Fullbright Park |
| Ongoing | BOR Environmental Teacher Training Program - Salmon in the Classroom |
| 81-90 | Yakima River Spring Chinook Enhancement Study |
| Ongoing | Yakima County On-going Planning Activities - Critical Areas |
| Ongoing | BOR - Real-Time Hydrologic Data Collection |
| Ongoing | City of Yakima On-going Planning Activities - Critical Areas |
| Ongoing | Tri-County Water Resource Agency WRIA 37, 38 and 39 |
| 2000 | Tri-County Water Resource Agency - Yakima Basin Watershed Assessment |
| Ongoing | Yakima County - Surface Water Management Program |
| 2000 | City of Yakima - Master Irrigation Plan |
| 2001 | City of Yakima - DRAFT Wastewater Facility Plan |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Update GIS Resources | a. Meet with resource agencies | 0.2 | $10,000 | |
| 1. Update GIS Resources | b.Update GIS maps - resource info. | 0.3 | $6,000 | |
| 1. Update GIS Resources | c. Update GIS maps - land ownership | 0.3 | $6,000 | |
| 1. Update GIS Resources | d. Update GIS maps - overlay zone | 0.3 | $6,000 | |
| 1. Update GIS Resources | e. Update GIS maps - potential lands | 0.3 | $3,000 | |
| 1. Update GIS Resources | f. Field Reconnaissance | 0.5 | $12,000 | |
| 1. Update GIS Resources | g. Individual parcel maps | 0.5 | $6,000 | |
| 2. Information/Knowledge | a. Visits & news media activities | 0.5 | $30,000 | |
| 2. Information/Knowledge | b. Quarterly updates on status | 0.3 | $6,000 | |
| 2. Information/Knowledge | c. Quarterly reports of status | 1.0 | $3,000 | |
| 2. Information/Knowledge | d. Website development | 1.0 | $8,000 | |
| 2. Information/Knowledge | e. Water quality monitoring programs | 1.0 | $0 | |
| 2. Information/Knowledge | f. Program of habitat monitoring methodologies | 1.0 | $10,000 | |
| 2. Information/Knowledge | g. Program of fhish and wildlife methodologies | 1.0 | $10,000 | |
| 3. Reduce Riparian Impacts | a. Manage activities of contract appraisers | 0.5 | $36,000 | |
| 3. Reduce Riparian Impacts | b. Obtain appraisals of properties | 1.0 | $120,000 | |
| 3. Reduce Riparian Impacts | c. Meet with property owners | 1.0 | $2,000,000 | |
| 4. Quantify Future Opportunity | a. Seek volunteer assistance | 1.0 | $0 | |
| 4. Quantify Future Opportunity | b. Establish priority list | 0.2 | $6,000 | |
| 4. Quantify Future Opportunity | c. Publish priority list on website | 0.2 | $6,000 | |
| 4. Quantify Future Opportunity | d. Seek volunteer implementation | 1.0 | $0 | |
| 4. Quantify Future Opportunity | e. Seek additional financial resources | 1.0 | $6,000 | |
| 5. NEPA Compliance | a. NEPA documentation | 1.0 | $20,000 | |
| 6. Miscellaneous (Other) | a. Unidentified expenses | 1.0 | $49,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring and Quantification (On-going) | 2003 | 2006 | $260,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $50,000 | $60,000 | $70,000 | $80,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Restore aquatic and wildlife habitat | 2003 | 2006 | $12,000,000 |
| 2. Water quality improvements at stormwater discharges | 2004 | 2006 | $3,300,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $3,000,000 | $4,100,000 | $4,100,000 | $4,100,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Volunteer Restoration | a. Civic groups/schools | 1.0 | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Volunteer restoration activities | 2003 | 2006 | $180,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $30,000 | $40,000 | $50,000 | $60,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Agency Monitoring/Evaluation | a. Monitoring | 1.0 | $60,000 | |
| b. Evaluation | 1.0 | $60,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Agency Monitoring/Evaluation | 2003 | 2006 | $740,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $140,000 | $160,000 | $200,000 | $240,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2.0 | $116,000 |
| Fringe | 35% | $40,600 |
| Supplies | $10,000 | |
| Travel | $2,400 | |
| Indirect | $140,000 | |
| Capital | $2,000,000 | |
| NEPA | $20,000 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $120,000 | |
| Other | $50,000 | |
| $2,499,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $2,499,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $2,499,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $2,200,000 |
| % change from forecast | 13.6% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Added detailed activities and tasks
Reason for change in scope
Added monitoring activities
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| City of Yakima | Unknown | $0 | cash |
| Yakima County | Unknown | $0 | cash |
| City of Union Gap | Unknown | $0 | cash |
| Yakama Nation | Unknown | $0 | cash |
| WDFW | Unknown | $0 | cash |
| Civic Volunteers | Unknown | $0 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund unless a response provides much stronger justification and integration with the BOR and Yakama Nation projects in the Selah floodplain. Given the competition for funds in the Yakima Basin, we recommend a low priority be assessed to this proposal due to its location, costs, and limited benefits expected in terms of fish production.
This proposal would purchase lands within 25 feet of either side of existing streams, creeks, and rivers; and purchase "development rights" for lands between 25 and 50 feet of either side of existing streams, creeks, and rivers within the Yakima Urban Area Boundary. The proponents suggest that this would initiate a long-term commitment to the preservation, protection, and future opportunity to restore the normative structure and function to aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
While the text of section 9 of this proposal is informative and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the projects within the basin, the ISRP is unable to assess the merits of this proposal since there is not indication of the area purchased or problems to be corrected. The proposal is obviously at a planning state but seeks commitments of $2 to $4 million per year for property purchases. Clearly, the establishments of functioning riparian zones within an urban environment could have strong social and educational value, but we are uncertain that the production benefits for fish and wildlife merit this level of expenditure. The proponents must provide more quantitative measures of the habitat protected and/or value to fish and wildlife before we can prioritize these costs against competing proposals within the basin. The proposal would also have benefited from some indication that these activities have the agreement of other agencies within the basin ... and that this proposal has an agreed priority within a basin plan. Linkages of this project to the BOR floodplain acquisition project(s) are not clear. How would this project complement the BOR projects, which have a long and clear history of coordinated planning and strong scientific underpinnings?
The proponents may wish to revise this proposal to only address staff and planning costs in order that the urban area maybe begin to be integrated in other basin plans.
Comment:
Fundable in part at reduced costs as proposed by project sponsors. The proponents of the proposal agreed that this project was "still very much in the planning phase" and suggested modifying the project for 2002. Their suggestion was to reduce the costs to $349,000 for 2002; other portions of the proposal would be shifted back one year to 2003. The ISRP agrees with an initial planning and assessment phase and would support this reduced cost for 2002. Funding for future years, however, should remain contingent upon completion of these assessments and integration of this program with other BOR and Yakama Nation projects in the Selah floodplain. Clearly, the primary goal of the project to establish functioning riparian zones within an urban environment could have strong social and educational value. However, the proponents must provide more quantitative measures of the habitat protected and/or value to fish and wildlife before their proposed efforts can be prioritized against competing proposals within the basin.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProject would improve riparian conditions and water quality in stream with occasional sthd use.
Comments
Relationship between proposed buffer widths and anticipated riparian function are not described. Therefore difficult to determine the overall benefit to fish. Costs seem high relative to buffer widths and fish distribution.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
No cost-share. Productivity of this urban area is questionable. This proposal should be deferred until the development of sub-basin plans and BPA’s land and water acquisition policies.Comment:
New proposals in the Yakima subbasin
As discussed in the general issues of this memorandum, there is not sufficient funding to initiate all of the new proposals that were rated as "fundable" by the ISRP and rated as "High Priority" by CBFWA in the Columbia Plateau province within the basinwide funding target of $186 million for Fiscal Year 2002. This is because funding all such proposals would not leave sufficient funds to initiate new proposals in the provinces that remain to be reviewed in the provincial review process. Therefore, the Council and its staff have worked with local entities to further prioritize new work, and asked them to put a premium on new work that represents consensus of the state and tribal resource managers that is consistent with Bonneville's BiOp needs. In the Yakima subbasin a collaborative effort was undertaken to prioritize Fiscal Year 2002 new needs along these guidelines. The following new proposals are those that were rated in this process as the highest priority at this time:
Project ID: 25100: Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat
NMFS has designated this project as consistent with the overall BiOp off-site mitigation strategy and actions (assigning a"400" rating as a riparian implementation project. The ISRP determined that this project is "Fundable in part at reduced costs as proposed by project sponsors." The Council is recommending partial funding for this project ($349,000 in each fiscal year 2002 through 2004). The ISRP disagreed with the CBFWA "do not fund" recommendation, and supported funding the proposal in part. The Council funding recommendation is for that portion of the proposal supported by the ISRP. Subsequent funding remains contingent upon completion of the assessments, integration of this program with other projects in the Selah floodplain, and Council approval.
Budget effect on base program (Project 25100):
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| Increase $349,000 | 0 | 0 |
Comment:
Comment:
Comment: