FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 26038
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 |
---|---|
26038 Narrative | Narrative |
Union Gap Reach Aerial Photo | Narrative Attachment |
Wenas Reach Aerial Photo | Narrative Attachment |
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 | Acquire Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Union Gap Reach and Wenas Basin, Yakima River Basin, Washington |
Proposal ID | 26038 |
Organization | U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Al Scherzinger |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 1749 Yakima, WA 98907-1749 |
Phone / email | 5095755848 / ascherzinger@pn.usbr.gov |
Manager authorizing this project | James Esget |
Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
Short description | Acquire essential anadromous fish habitat (flood plains, riparian zones, wetlands, and water rights) in the Union Gap Reach and Wenas Basin of the Yakima River Basin, Washington. |
Target species | Steelhead (mid-Columbia ESU), Spring Chinook, Coho |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
46.4833 | -120.4002 | Union Gap |
46.78 | -120.63 | Wenas Creek |
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acquire anadromous fish flood plain habitat | Locate and purchase anadromous fish flood plain habitat | $3,000,000 |
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 | $3,000,000 | |
$3,000,000 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $3,000,000 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $3,000,000 |
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Fundable. This was reviewed in the Columbia Plateau Review and was found to be fundable, no response was needed. In terms of this solicitation, the proposal meets the ESA affected species criterion and would increase instream flow. This is a proposal to purchase three parcels of land in the Yakima Basin to gain rights to a total of about 12 cfs of water. The purchase includes a water right for 1.3 cfs that will be restored to the Yakima River, 300 acres, 580 acres and 4.6 cfs for the Yakima River, and 7 cfs for instream flow in Wenas Creek. Although part of the benefit would be tributary flow increase for both Wenas Creek and Yakima River associated with the water rights, the greatest benefit is probably long-term preservation of valuable, diverse habitat associated with the land acquisitions. The Wenas Creek acquisition of water rights of 7 cfs would likely be significant, although it is unclear if there is a population from Wenas Creek that is adversely affected by the emergency power system operations. The 4.6 cfs as part of the 580 Acres on the Yakima River appears to be less significant.Other comments from the province review include:
The objectives are consistent with regional programs and are a high priority. The proposal is well written and is well coordinated with groups and agencies. It seemed significant that the basin is already under the YPBWEB water enhancement project, so lots of resources applied and available. The reviewers liked the idea of an urban (semi-urban?) demonstration project to show that a community can be proud of, and profit from, the river that flows through it rather than simply thinking of it as a conduit.
Comment:
Comment:
Defer to Columbia Plateau: the criteria established for this solicitation did not include land acquisitions. Furthermore, these types of global watershed actions would be better defined within the context of their respective subbasins and best prioritized through upcoming subbasin assessments and revised subbasin plans.