FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 198710001

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

Budget is higher because of funds required for: 1)personnel hours addressing NPPC's, BPA's & ISRP's increased requests; less time for fisheries issues; approximately $24,366 needed to partially replace previous Tribal cost share for salary, fringe & overhead to cover such activities; 2)partially funding a hydrologist's salary to assist with project design, BA's & implementation; this project has never received a boost in funding to assist with NMFS's & USFW's ESA requirements; approximately $21,048 is needed; 3)off-stream watering is a new task requiring $53,917; 4)improving or reducing fish passage impediments is a new task requiring $22,320; 5)approximately $6,705 additional funds for weed control due to more stream miles in projects; 6)approximately $3773 additional funds for increased office & administrative personnel; 7) due to inflation, fringe rate rose from 30% to 35%, resulting in an $8,740 increase.

Reason for change in scope

Changes include: 1) a task to drill wells & develop off-stream livestock watering; water gaps, associated high maintenance & stream bank unraveling will be eliminated & replaced with off-site water sources in existing project areas, and off-stream watering will be incorporated into new project areas; off-stream watering will help ensure continued landowner support of riparian livestock exclusion upon easement expiration; 2) numerous passage barriers have been identified in the recently completed Umatilla Subbasin Summary; a task has been added to address these barriers; Umatilla County will partner with CTUIR & provide cost share assistance; 3) there have been major delays implementing in-stream projects over the past two years due to the lack of an on-staff hydrologist to assist with project designs, B.A.'s, in-stream permit applications, ESA clearances, etc. CTUIR requested additional dollars to assist with these needs in the previous proposal, but were denied.

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Budget has been calculated at modest five percent annual increases to provide for additional stream miles to maintain, anticipated inflation and salary increases.

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.

Due to past history, there are two habitat improvement proposals, this one from CTUIR, the other from ODFW (19871002). These may now be coordinated but should be functionally combined (with administrative and jurisdiction independence as appropriate) and flow from the conclusions of one overall habitat assessment and prescription, with proposed rehabilitation activities or sites listed by priority. Clear documentation that the latter has occurred is necessary. There is high potential for success in these efforts, given that 60% of the steelhead production is in two tributaries with rehabilitation the focus. The upper watershed was logged - this should be addressed first since forest practices of the past likely need corrective actions. The lower watershed has been vastly altered by the removal of riparian vegetation (typical of the Columbia Plateau) and will likely require several years of rehabilitation effort. A history of effort and lessons learned was evident, including the wise use of natural channel design principles, with well surveyed and designed projects - they report that 30% of the watershed has been addressed.

There is a lack of monitoring and evaluation of fish results, and a reliance on invertebrate sampling that is unorthodox and may not be recommended. However, if they can argue (with references) that invertebrates are a reasonable surrogate, then the invertebrate monitoring should be focused on qualitative rather than attempting quantitative analysis for the reason that abundance is so variable from sample to sample. Qualitative analysis might examine the adaptations of particular species for life in high temperatures, and high sediment levels. One should observe a shift in relative abundance of adaptive types as the habitat improves, but it will be difficult to control for other factors such as climate, carcass abundance, other nutrient inputs, or other habitat alterations. Fish abundance indicators such as snorkel surveys in treated and untreated reaches may be easier, and more instructive. Please refer to our general comments on monitoring and evaluation.

An overall monitoring and evaluation program for the subbasin is required (as is an overall assessment and plan, coordinated through all agencies involved). Monitoring of project success is apparently the responsibility of other projects (clear reference required to 199000501 and 198902401), but the data should be included in this proposal to show that benefits are being provided. Also, see the ISRP's general comments on monitoring and evaluation. The authors mentioned "failed in-stream" projects; these conclusions are a basis for adaptive management and should be described as results.

Comment:

Comment:

Habitat restoration remains the most effective means to increase stream productivity for salmonids, particularly important during this period of low survival during the smolt-to-adult life stage. Accordingly, the most effective restoration tools need to be identified, applied, and evaluated through a standardized process beginning with watershed condition assessment and following with priority prescriptions, proven restoration treatments, and well-coordinated monitoring. Reviewers felt that monitoring aspects of this work were slim, flawed and poorly justified despite a detailed response. In the response, sponsors went to great length to find support for their use of macroinvertebrate monitoring. A clear explanation of the need for invertebrate monitoring as a response variable in evaluating the effectiveness of enhanced fish habitat was lacking. The sponsors could have produced a more convincing argument by using some real data to show the ISRP that their concerns are unwarranted. A clear explanation of the need for invertebrate monitoring as a response variable in evaluating the effectiveness of enhanced fish habitat was lacking. The response variable should be fish, and preferably smolt yield from a sufficient of treated and untreated systems number (to be determined based on annual variability and the level of detection required).

A data summary on some (unjustified) variables was attached but there was no interpretation offered, and little to indicate positive or negative values from habitat enhancement. The approach to monitoring is not in compliance with other efforts in the Basin, for which ISRP has repeatedly requested coordination. Habitat enhancement should continue in high priority sites of obvious limitation to salmonids, but other work only upon completion of the WSU watershed assessment that will hopefully detail the work required (prescription).

Comment:

Comments
Habitat restoration is one of the most effective means for increasing smolt- to-adult life stage survival. Proposal needs to better address restoration in a science-based manner -- effective restoration tools need to be identified, applied, & evaluated thru a standardized process beginning with watershed condition assessment & following with priority prescriptions, proven restoration treatments, & well-coordinated monitoring.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

BPA believes it is time to reassess direction and priorities for habitat enhancement in the Umatilla subbasin and indeed, across all subbasins and provinces. For example, the work proposed here appears diffuse (18.5 miles in 9 different watersheds) and not focused on priority areas. BPA greatly prefers to fund riparian habitat enhancement work that is guided by a subbasin plan. The ISRP withheld its support for this project until "a subbasin watershed assessment and prescription plan" is provided, and the proposal states (p. 3 of narrative) that Washington State University is presently completing such an assessment. BPA particularly desires two things from the assessment and subsequent proposals:

1. An inventory of the productive and relatively undisturbed reaches on private lands in the watershed (if any) that may be at risk, and a plan for how to protect them (NMFS Biological Opinion Action 150 and the "Watershed Health" strategy of the Implementation Plan).
2. Better integration of BPA-funded habitat enhancement work with other conservation programs, such as those of the USDA.

BPA's financial resources are limited. The large number and high cost of projects proposed so far in the provincial review process, particularly for the Columbia Plateau Province, would exhaust the entire FWP budget if all high priority and "fundable" projects were actually funded by BPA. This underscores the need to ensure that each project, whether ongoing or new, is focused on priority needs and is efficiently addressing those needs. We wish to see this project reconsider its direction and focus before committing funds beyond the maintenance level for FY02 described above. This applies to project #198710002 as well.

We wish to continue an M&E program on habitat enhancement work completed under this project to date, and we note that project #199000501 is funding some of that M&E. We would like the project sponsor and ODFW to participate in a review and possible reorientation of the ongoing habitat M&E in the subbasin, as recommended also by the ISRP. Late 2001 would be timely for such a review, and BPA representatives would plan to participate.

Comment:

ISRP" Disagree - Not Fundable" recommendations for Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat (CTUIR) Project 198710001, and Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement (ODFW) Project 198710002

BPA prefers to fund only the habitat enhancement work for which previous funding obligations have been made under these projects. BPA has determined there is a need to reassess direction and priorities for habitat enhancement in the Umatilla subbasin. To accomplish this they would like the sponsors to participate in a review and reorientation of the proposals, as suggest by the ISRP, prior to funding.

Staff recommendation: These projects are intended to implement actions that protect and enhance riparian and in-stream habitat in the Umatilla River Basin. The staff concludes that the ISRP's comments highlight concerns about the continuing watershed restoration, to this degree and intensity, without a subbasin assessment and plan. The critical subbasin assessment needs to be developed in close cooperation and a prescription plan is needed to define the roles of these projects.

The staff recommends continued funding of the base program and passive restoration strategies (i.e. screening, riparian buffers) for these projects pending subbasin planning. The staff recommends that the budget not include funding for aggressive channel design/implementation techniques. Bonneville funding for this effort needs to be justified in the Council's subbasin planning process. In addition budgets for FY 2003 and 2004 need to be refined in the development of the FY 2002 Budget and SOW that reflect the base program and passive restoration strategies (e.g. screening, riparian buffers). Following are the adjustments to the proposals reflecting the staff recommendations regarding the objectives and tasks to be funded.

Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement (ODFW) Project 198710002: objective 1 (tasks a - f) at $142,801, objective 2 no funding recommended, objective 3 (task a - e) at $79,864, objective 4 (task a - e) at $23,874, objective 5 (task a - e) at $21,225 and objective 6 (task a - e) at $32,500. Totaling $300,264.

Budget effect on base program (Project 198710002):

Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat (CTUIR) Project 198710001: Section 4, objective 1, task b at $19,442, objective 2 at $74,914*, and objective 3 at $5,150; Section 5, objective 1, task b, c, d, e, f, g and h at $154,262; Section 6, objective 1 at $61,866 and 2 at $5,733; Section 7, objective 1 task a, c, d, e, f, g and h at $28,633. Totaling $350,000

Budget effect on base program (Project 198710001):

*2 Section 4, objective 2, task a - f funded at a lower level to reflect funding for the base program and passive restoration (as described in the issue document) to cover staff salaries, travel and support.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website