FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25020

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Fundable. The proposal makes a good general case for the need to acquire additional high-quality shrub-steppe lands, but a much weaker specific case for the purchase of the RSA. Others speakers (TNC-Betsy) indicated that this property was specified in one of the planning documents as a high priority area. A WDFW speaker (Don) also verified that the area is high priority type, but had not been specifically identified.

Property is adjacent to existing wildlife conservation areas, including the Hanford and the WDFW's Sunnyside WMA. Intent is to transfer the land to WDFW, but that set of steps has not been agreed upon. Acquisition of this deep-soil shrub-steppe habitat supports a number of target species. The cost of the property appears reasonable at approximately $350/acre. Livestock grazing should be allowed to the extent that it does not interfere with habitat protection and expansion for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species.

Comment:

* Identified by the CBFWA as a proposal that could potentially be implemented as High Priority projects pending crediting resolution with BPA and NWPPC. The CBFWA will formally request a policy level meeting to resolve this issue.

Comment:

Comment:

Additionally, the ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

Comment:

Comments

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? no

Comment:

Habitat acquisition proposals.

There are many proposals (both new and ongoing) that focus on habitat acquisition in the Yakima subbasin (25002, 25020, 25024, 25025, 25032, 25078, 199206200, 199603501, and 199705100). Some of these proposals focus on acquisitions of habitat primarily as a strategy to benefit listed anadromous fish, others appear to focus on habitat for wildlife, and others appear to address both. Given the limits available under the target budget for Fiscal Year 2002, each of these projects cannot be fully funded. In order to prioritize among these proposals, the Council may wish to consider the following. First, as stated throughout this memorandum, those proposals that received consensus support by local resource managers that are consistent with the BiOp or are consistent with its off-site mitigation strategy are favored. This would prioritize those acquisition proposals that are exclusively or primarily designed to benefit anadromous fish. Further, the Council should consider its program language that puts a priority on mitigating for wildlife habitat losses in areas of the basin where mitigation efforts have lagged. This program principle was one of the driving considerations for the Council's support for extensive habitat acquisition funding in the Mountain Columbia and Inter-Mountain provinces completed earlier. The Yakima subbasin has received substantial mitigation funding for construction/inundation losses to wildlife habitat in the past, and is not, relatively speaking, an area where wildlife mitigation efforts are lagging behind.

Projects 25024, 25025, 25078, 199603501, 199206200 and 199705100 all have a substantial focus on protecting habitat for listed anadromous fish in the Yakima subbasin. In addition, the first five of those projects were identified in the local collaborative process as priority projects. (See Yakima Issues 1 and 2 above). On the other hand, project 25020, 25002, and 25032, while apparently meritorious projects based on the ISRP and CBFWA reviews, have a substantial wildlife habitat component.

Staff recommendation: In light of the above considerations -- emphasis on anadromous fish, local priorities, the Yakima subbasins relatively advanced level of wildlife mitigation for construction losses -- the staff recommendation is to support funding for the proposals that focus on anadromous fish benefits -- 25002, 25024, 25025, 25078, 199603501, and 199705100. The amounts of funding for each of those proposals have been discussed identified in the issues discussed previously.

Budget effect on base program (Projects 25002, 25020, 25024, 25025, 25032, 25078, 199206200, 199603501, and 199705100):

Comment:

Comment: