FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200202300

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

NA

Reason for change in scope

NA

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

NA

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Fundable only if priority is justified in a response. How does it fit into an overall plan for the Yakima Basin? The project would purchase 30 acres of sheep pasture at $5000 per acre. The review panel apparently drove past or near this on the field tour but unfortunately the project was neither visited nor mentioned. The proposal only minimally describes the project. A map is needed. Benefits to summer steelhead and resident trout are noted but not detailed, and the property is adjacent to a popular recreation lake. It would in theory complement YN habitat efforts on Wilson Creek, but such specific ties and benefits are not described. It also purports to increase instream flows, but by how much? This purchase is only likely to provide benefits as part of the larger Wilson Creek restoration and water rights program.

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:

Comment:

Comments
Acquisition compliments significant other habitat investments in same creek system.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

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: 25024: Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project - Wilson Creek Snowden Parcel Acquisition

NMFS has designated this project as corresponding directly to RPA action item 150, which seeks to protect currently productive non-federal habitat in subbasins with listed species.

Budget effect on base program (Project 25024):

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:

Comment: