FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200202900

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 if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns.

This is a $5million, 5-yr program to fix fish passage on four Wildlife Areas belonging to WDFW. It would inventory 40K acres/yr and then correct 20% problem structures annually beginning in FY 2004. It was surprising to reviewers that a passage inventory had never been conducted.

No indication was given of the fish benefits that would be achieved. Indeed, there was nothing presented that details any fish passage problems that might exist. On the positive side, the attachments document the existence of an elaborate statewide protocol to inventory and remediate problem sites. Only very brief mention of M&E, but OK

In general the review panel gives priority to passage needs, but in this case they reacted negatively to this vague but apparently expensive proposal. A response is needed that more completely describes the need for the project and clarifies several procedural items. Specifically, does the barrier assessment protocol specify how information on ownership of the culvert will be used? How will non-WDFW owners of culverts that present barriers be connected to assistance programs? Evidence that the Priority Index (PI) for the WDFW Fish Passage Inventory has been objectively assessed and validated should also be provided, as well as references or evidence that the Screening Priority Index Model has been validated.

Comment:

Comment:

Fish passage needs generally are a high priority, but the response was not helpful in alleviating several review panel concerns regarding the relative need to detect and remediate fish passage problems and its cost on these WDFW lands. Funding for the first year would answer some of the questions concerning the benefits of corrective actions.

From the response, it appears that the Screening Priority Index Model is popular and functioning well within the realm of decision-making (certainly very important), but our query was more in regards to whether predictions from that model proved to be accurate in a biological sense, and whether fish populations actually have responded to enhanced passage as the model has predicted.

Although fiscal issues are not a major interest of the review panel, cost seems inordinately high: $257K for a two-person crew for one year (compared to $169K for a WDFW survey crew), and no evidence of any WDFW costshare in out-years for design and construction.

Comment:

Comments
Costs are very high. WDFW may already be aware of passage problems on their lands. Each of the listed areas has management staff assigned and competent to conduct the survey. Proposal would be stronger if came forward with proposals to fix or design fixes to problems identified in survey. No anadromous fish above the Wenas Dam in that the Wenas wildlife area, benefit to salmonids in this area unclear.

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: 25058: Fish Passage Inventory and Corrective Actions on WDFW Lands in the Yakima Subbasin

NMFS has designated this project as corresponding directly to RPA action item 154, which requires BPA work with the Council to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. The ISRP finds this project "Fundable in part to assess the problems in the context of the larger watershed (objective 1, task 1). Further funding for corrective action should be contingent on identification of priority sites and preparation of more specific information on costs and benefits." The Council is recommending only partial funding for this project (only that portion supported by the ISRP).

Budget effect on base program (Project 25058):

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: