FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 26035
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 |
|---|---|
| 26035 Narrative | Narrative |
| Attached Map | Narrative Attachment |
| Letter from J. Koenings (WDFW) to S. Wright (BPA) RE: Washington Action Plan Projects | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Taneum Creek Water Rights & Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 26035 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Brent Renfrow |
| Mailing address | 201 N. Pearl St. Ellensburg, WA 98926 |
| Phone / email | 5099251013 / renfrbr@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ted Clausing |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Conservation purchases of key Yakima River floodplain properties in the Kittitas Valley reach. |
| Target species | spring chinook, steelhead, bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.0821 | -120.7509 | T18N, R17E S3,4,5,6 |
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provide extensive cover in a reach of Taneum Creek | Place numerous in-stream structures Plant native vegetation | 9 | $200,000 | Yes |
| Provide adequate water quantity in Taneum Creek | Purchase water rights | 12 | $330,000 |
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Capital | Water Rights Purchases | $300,000 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: Placement of rootwads/Native vegetation planting | $200,000 |
| Subcontractor | Program Administration @6% | $30,000 |
| $530,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $530,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $530,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WDFW | Engineering and Design | $10,000 | in-kind |
| DOT | Rootwads | $10,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Not fundable. Inadequate proposal. The proposed action meets the solicitation criteria. However, this is a very brief and inadequate proposal for two water right acquisitions in the Yakima River floodplain and placement of 200 rootwads in the stream that leaves unanswered questions about satisfying the solicitation criteria and normal proposal-review criteria. An ESA species (Mid-Columbia steelhead) would be affected, as well as unlisted upper Yakima spring chinook and bull trout. The brief discussion under rationale suggests that the water obtained with the rights might not actually remain in the stream. Thus the criterion of adding to tributary flow may not be satisfied (the other three functional criteria are not relevant). The Stanford upwelling rationale for habitat value is given in the abstract but not discussed in the text. The placement of rootwads is not justified or presented in the text as an objective, simply stated in the abstract. Neither the justification nor rationale sections of the proposal refer specifically to the solicitation criteria. Although the water right purchases might be worthwhile, the proposal is not an adequate justification for funding them under this solicitation. The root wad work is totally unsupported.Comment:
Not fundable. The proposed action to acquire two water rights in the Yakima River floodplain is appropriate under the solicitation criteria and ESA-listed and non-listed species are in the creek. However, the proposal (and response) are deficient in identifying either the amount (cfs) of water that will be gained for instream flow or, if that is not known, identifying target goals (in cfs) for the project to convert to instream flow. Similarly, no description occurs for how much the added instream flows would contribute to limiting late summer flows. As such, the proposal is inadequate. Plans for placement of rootwads and vegetating planting do not fit the Action Plan solicitation, but would have been appropriate for the Columbia Plateau review. There is no monitoring and evaluation plan. A monitoring and evaluation plan is needed that would be consistent with and at a finer scale than monitoring projects funded during the Columbia Plateau Province Review. As it stands, the proposal is too brief regarding the assurances that any instream flow gains are possible, the basis for purchase and placement of rootwads, and the need for re-vegetation.Comment: