FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25078

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 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:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
Developing a showcase floodplain restoration program in an urban setting is very appealing. Project is time sensitive. Can't tell how much of the budget will actually go to land purchases or how much the eventual reconstruction will cost. This project should be coordinated with the YIN land acquisition program. BOR has its own mitigation responsibilities and $12 million earmarked for acquisition from the enhancement legislation to help fund that mitigation. It would be beneficial to see how this request for $ 9,000,000 from BPA fits within the broad context of those previous acquisitions or planned acquisitions.

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: 25078: Acquire Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Selah Gap to Union Gap Flood Plain, Yakima River Basin, Washington

This project was initially recommended for funding by the Council to Bonneville in the Action Plan solicitation in June 2001. BPA deferred this project to the Columbia Plateau for funding. 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. The purpose of this project is to acquire essential anadromous fish habitat (flood plains, riparian zones, wetlands, and water rights). The ISRP finds the project "Fundable, High Priority". Further, the ISRP states, "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. 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." Council funding is contingent on a cost share with the Bureau of Reclamation where Bonneville's share should be less than 50%. This is a one-time funding contribution only.

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: