FY 2000 proposal 20072
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 |
|---|---|
| 20072 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restoring Perennial Instream Flows at Ahtanum Creek |
| Proposal ID | 20072 |
| Organization | Dames and Moore |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mr. Cecil Urlich |
| Mailing address | 500 Market Place Tower, 2025 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 |
| Phone / email | 2067280744 / seacmu@dames.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Multi-year project to restore instream flows to Ahtanum Creek and thus to reestablish fish habitat. Proposed joint funding project between Ahtanum Irrigation District (AID) and BPA with research assistance from Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Target species | Primarily Spring Chinook, Steelhead, and Bull Trout; possibly Coho, Fall Chinook, and Cutthroat Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Completed Comprehensive Water Conservation Plan |
| 1999 | Complete Constructibility and FeasibilityReview |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9603302 | Evaluate the Feasibility and Potential Risks of Restoring Yakima R. Coho | Management support of re-introduced species to Athanum Creek |
| 9506402 | Upper Yakima Species Interactions Studies | Management support |
| 9102 | Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment | Use watershed data to facilitate restoration of salmon and steelhead |
| 9603501 | Satus Watershead Restoration Project | Restoration will supplement activites undertaken in Satus Watershed |
| 9101 | Restore Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed | Restoration will supplement activites in Toppenish Creek Watershed |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $125,500 | |
| Fringe | At 25% | $41,500 |
| Supplies | $4,250 | |
| NEPA | Future step | $0 |
| Travel | $7,850 | |
| Indirect | $5,800 | |
| $184,900 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $184,900 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $184,900 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| AID | Complete scoping, alternatives, & Study Documentation Report | $184,900 | unknown |
| BPA | Provide partial funding for scoping, alternatives, & Study Documentation Report | $184,900 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Agreements on the range of alternatives may take more time
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund, benefits to fish and wildlife are not demonstrated and there is a potential for adverse effects.Comments: This proposal provides arguments regarding the potential value of the project based on historical evidence of salmon in Ahtanum Creek and favorable conditions immediately upstream of the project area. However, it provides little information to make any judgment about the likelihood of success of the restoration effort itself or to identify any ecological risks associated with the proposed reservoir. The principle goal of the proposal is to collect information. It offers no conceptual approach for solving a perceived problem and asks no scientific questions to direct what information is collected. It is a proposal to prepare a proposal for reservoir construction and to meet the administrative requirements of NEPA. It is a laundry list of "hoops" through which the proposed project must proceed to navigate the permit process.
The proposal prejudges the ongoing feasibility study (to be completed in June) indicating that it will show that the project is feasible. If it is already clear that the project is, in fact, feasible, then specific results of the study ought to be provided including any concerns that have been raised. The proposal also states that many of the issues that would be uncovered during the scoping process are also "already obvious." Yet none of these issues are discussed. The bulk of the proposal is designed to scope out the alternatives for developing a multi-purpose reservoir that would primarily be used for irrigation. The authors of the proposal argue that this is consistent with restoring a "normative" river ecosystem. This interpretation stands in marked contrast to other projects that are attempting to restore passage and water quality within the basin.
The authors do not attempt to explain alternative approaches for reaching the biological objectives or how they were evaluated or why they were rejected. The public discussion and resolution of both of these are left to the NEPA process, for which the proposal writers are soliciting funds. The authors do an inadequate job of explaining why funding of this is the obligation of BPA under the FWP and not some other organization. It would seem that at least some discussion of the above two issues is necessary if the authors wish to make a strong case that funding of this project does not conflict with some portions of the FWP. This proposal does not provide sufficient information to evaluate its technical merit. It does not provide sufficient justification to show why BPA should support the work.
Comment:
Comment:
Proposal does not provide enough information to justify feasibility study. It appears that the proposed storage reservoir would not hold enough water to maintain flow in Ahtanum Creek at sufficient levels for fish use. We are not sure if increased flows in Ahtanum Creek will be used for fish or for additional irrigation by senior water rights holders.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Considerable concern about whether it is really possible to get 1/3 of total flows from Ahtanum Creek. Upstream storage is a questionable method of improving instream flows.Demonstrate that an in-stream water right will be created.
Demonstrate that the increased flows will benefit fish and wildlife and not be used by irrigators.
"Scoping" is not an appropriate use of BPA funds and should be done before the proposals are submitted.
Not enough detail in Task C. 1. How will temperature and flow be measured. Define sufficient spatial resolution. Consider temporal resolution.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];