FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199401806
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
199401806 Narrative | Narrative |
199401806 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Columbia Plateau: Tucannon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Columbia Plateau: Tucannon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Implement Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid Habitat |
Proposal ID | 199401806 |
Organization | Columbia Conservation District (CCD) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Debby Nordheim |
Mailing address | 202 S 2nd St Dayton, WA 99328-1327 |
Phone / email | 5093824773 / debra-nordheim@wa.nacdnet.org |
Manager authorizing this project | Terry Bruegman |
Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Tucannon |
Short description | Implement, assess, and monitor habitat cost-share projects coordinated through the Tucannon River Model Watershed Program, a "grass roots" public and agency collaborated effort to restore salmonid habitat on private and public property. |
Target species | Species affected by projects in this process are ESA listed stocks of Spring Chinook Salmon (Snake River Spring & Summer ESU), Fall Chinook Salmon (Snake River Fall Run ESU), Snake River Steelhead (Snake River Summer Steelhead ESU), and Bull Trout. |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
HU 17060107060 (Tucannon River Main Stem & tributaries exept Pataha Creek - Tucannon River Model Watershed) | ||
46.49 | -117.97 | Tucannon River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1980 | Initial proposal to BPA for watershed restoration funding - not funded at this time |
1984 | Initiated USDA PL-566 process for watershed assessment and funding for implementation of Conservation Best Management Pracitces for agriculture, range, & riparian areas within the watershed |
1986 | Conducted a riparian tree density study in collaboration with WDFW |
1987 | 2 large sediment basins constructed with combined drainage of 5336 ac. in prime spring chinook spawning area. Basins caught 3971 tons of sediment the first year. |
1987 | 8000 ft. riparian fencing and 5923 ft. re-vegetation (4708 willows, 253 alder, 4858 cottonwood, 95 vine maple, & 135 ponderosa pine) |
1987 | Wrote 11 Conservation Farm Plans encompassing 2927.1 ac of farm ground in the drainages of the 2 sediment basins. |
1989 | Install 2 log weirs and 11 rock deflectors with logs & roots and boulder clusters in 2.5 mile demonstration area (28 total structures which created 2 large plunge pools and 26 medium scour pools. |
1989 | Planted 7200 willow, alder and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman and Conservation Corps within the 2.5 mile demonstration area. |
1990 | Installed 28 additional boulder and wood clusters to scour pools and stabilize banks. Xmas trees were used for some structures to create habitat complexity while stabilizing banks (within the 2.5 mile demonstration area). |
1990 | Planted 1900 willow, alder and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman. Beaver are a major problem to whip establishment. |
1991 | Received Congressional funding for the Tucannon PL-566 program for soil conserving practices. |
1992 | PL-566 contracts written with 14 landowners for long term conservation practice implementation on 13,823.5 ac. within the watershed. |
1992 | Planted 3043 willow and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman. |
1993 | IFIM study by WDOE to set flow requirements to meet salmonid habitat needs. |
1993 | Installed 4700 ft. riparian fencing, 2 limited access watering sites, and 1 off river watering system. |
1993 | Installed 3 rock & log deflectors to create 3 large pools, stabilize eroding bank, and decrease the width to depth ratio. |
1993 | Planted 1460 willow and cottonwood whips using volunteer fisherman. |
1993 | Initiated the Tucannon River Model Watershed Program through BPA. |
1993 | Establish Technical Advisory Committee, Landowner Steering Committee, and assign assessment responsibility between all members. |
1994 | Installed a series of 3 desilting basins in a wetland enhancement & sediment control project. Project is in a spring chinook & steelhead spawning and rearing area. |
1995 | Finalize multi-agency efforts to synthesis the extensive scientific works previously done on the Tucannon River basin (see references in Plan). |
1995 | Conduct on-the-ground reach-by-reach current habitat condition assessment. |
1995 | First draft of the Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan written, an extension of the "Tucannon River Watershed Plan - Environmental Assessment (USDS 1991)," prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Act, Public Law 83-566. |
1995 | Received WCC grant funding to jump start the protection, enhancement, and restoration projects recommended in the Draft Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan. |
1996 | Installed 20 Early Action Instream Habitat Projects resulting in 5 large plunge pools, 4460 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 125 small/medium pools created, 1 irrigation modification, 3100 ft. riparian fencing, and 500 trees planted. |
1996 | Reconstructed one large riparian desilting basin damaged in the flood. Catches sediment in spring chinook & steelhead spawning and rearing reaches. |
1996 | Reconstructed a 160 ft. section of dike incorporating large rootwads for habitat complexity, as requested by WDFW. |
1996 | Conducted a new on-the-ground reach-by-reach habitat assessment to inventory flood damage, critical areas, and to modify planned implementation schedules following the 1996 flood. |
1996 | Installed 1 upland sediment catch basin. |
1997 | Comprehensive report to NWPPC on the Model Watershed Process and Early Action Projects. |
1997 | Final Draft Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan written. |
1997 | Provide WDFW with water temperature measuring equipment for new temperature monitoring data. |
1997 | Installed 12 instream habitat projects resulting in 8 large plunge pools, 6828 ft. of LWD & complexity, 3 off-channel rearing sites, 98 small/medium pools created, 1 irrigation modification, 5762 ft. riparian fencing, and 7000 trees planted. |
1997 | Performed O&M on 5 of the 1996 projects due to January 1-3, 1997 flooding. All projects remained in place, 5 just needed some additional work to maintain structural integrity. |
1997 | 663.7 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices. |
1998 | Installed 12 instream habitat projects resulting in 15 large plunge pools, 5540 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 146 small/medium pools created, 1 irrigation modification, 11,891 ft. riparian fencing, and 10,000 trees planted. |
1998 | 2665.24 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices. |
1998 | Take post-construction cross-sectional habitat measurements. |
1999 | Provide a "Living Stream" to school for salmon life-cycle education, involving approximately 500 students. |
1999 | Initiated a riparian planting monitoring program to measure survivability by species, planting method effectiveness, and to determine any outside influences. |
1999 | Initiated a new series of water quality monitoring collection sites to evaluate restoration efforts. |
1999 | Conducting a new series of ISCO sediment sampling collection sites. |
1999 | Perform pre-construction habitat cross-sectional measurements. |
1999 | Install 9 instream habitat projects resulting in 22 large plunge pools, 6146 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 98 small/medium pools created, and 26,000 trees planted. |
1999 | 1870.6 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices. |
1999 | 2 upland water and sediment control structures installed. |
1999 | Monitoring Report on Habitat Projects done by WDFW. |
2000 | Continue salmon life-cycle education in the local schools. |
2000 | Continue habitat project monitoring and evaluation, report compiled by WDFW. |
2000 | Continue water quality monitoring collection, report compiled by WSU in 2001. |
2000 | Installed 7.5 instream habitat projects resulting in 18 large plunge pools, 4490 ft. of LWD & complexity, 1 off-channel rearing site, 78 small/medium pools created, and 69,276 trees planted. |
2000 | 1852 ac. enrolled in conservation tillage practices. |
2000 | 5 CREP contracts encompassing 168.5 acres. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
9401807 | Continue with Implementation of Pataha Watershed Plan | Pataha is the major tributary to the lower Tucannon. It negatively effects habitat and water quality in the lower Tucannon where fall chinook spawn, steelhead rear, and bull trout over winter. |
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan | Supplementation Assessment | |
200001900 | Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Brood Program | Supplementation to increase natural production in the Tucannon |
Tucannon Subbasin Summary Process |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Coordinate Implementation of Tucannon River Model watershed Plan Activities | a. Facilitate watershed council activities | 5 | $3,800 | |
b. Secure supplemental funding for Plan implementation; projects to protect, enhance and resore salmonid habitat | 5 | $5,000 | ||
c. Facilitate cooperation & agreement between resource agencies and landowners | 5 | $1,887 | ||
d. Coordinate watershed/salmonid life-cycle information/education activities | 5 | $2,000 | ||
2. Coordinate habitat project site selection. | a. Facilitate Inter-Disciplinary Team potential project site evaluations. | 5 | $2,200 | |
b. Identify withdrawal efficiency needs. | 1 | $1,500 | ||
c. Coordinate program efforts with CREP and Continuous CRP programs. | 5 | $2,000 | ||
d. Coordinate with WCC, NRCS & WDFW for potential project engineering and design. | 5 | $5,788 | ||
e. Facilitate project prioritization and selection. | 5 | $1,200 | ||
f. Complete Biological Assessment | 5 | $2,000 | ||
g. Complete NEPA check list | 5 | $500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Coordinate Implementation of Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan Activities, tasks, a, b, c, & d. | 2003 | 2006 | $54,672 |
2. Coordinate habitat project site selection, tasks a, c, d, e, f, & g. | 2003 | 2006 | $65,447 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$28,712 | $29,573 | $30,460 | $31,374 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival. | a. Install instream bio-engineered habitat strucutres for increased fish utilization by increasing geomorphic stability and pool complexity & reducing water temperature and cobble embeddiness. | 5 | $100,000 | |
b. Recover riparian buffer area to restore riparian bio-funcion to reduce sedimentation and water temperature while increasing LWD recruitment. | 5 | $65,000 | ||
c. Install agriculture conservation Best Management Practices to reduce sedimentation impacts on salmonid life-cycle & habitats. | 5 | $20,000 | ||
2. Flow Enhancement | a. Upgrade withdrawal screening systems. | 5 | $25,000 | |
b. Water leases. | 5 | $22,625 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult pre-spawning and juvenile survival, tasks a & b. | 2003 | 2006 | $951,442 |
2. Flow Enhancement, tasks a, & b. | 2003 | 2006 | $215,532 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$244,256 | $292,694 | $307,329 | $322,695 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult prespawning and juvenile survival. | a. Adjust existing structures to accommodate natural fluvial function | 5 | $12,625 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Improve pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity to improve adult prespawning and juvenile survival, task a. | 2003 | 2006 | $57,136 |
2. Flow enhancement, water leases. | 2003 | 2006 | $97,516 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$35,811 | $37,675 | $39,559 | $41,537 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Validate effectiveness of projects to meet habitat objectives & affect biological outcomes. | a. Conduct pre & post-construction habitat cross sectional inventories | 5 | $20,000 | |
b. Perform fish utilization of project sites | 5 | $8,500 | ||
c. Conduct basin wide redd counts at project sites (WDFW/LSRCP in-kind) | 5 | $0 | ||
d. Conduct structural integrity evaluations (NRCS in-kind) | 5 | $0 | ||
e. Turbidity data collection form ISCO sampling sites | 5 | $6,000 | ||
f. Photo documentation of project work | 5 | $450 | ||
g. Conduct tree & shrub survival study | 5 | $4,550 | ||
2. Conduct 5-Year Milestone Comprehensive Project evaluation | a. Conduct Reach-by-Reach Walk-the-Stream re-evaluation (geomorphic stability, vegetation condition, instream habitat quality & quantity). | 2 | $40,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Validate effectiveness of projects to meet habitat objectives & affect biological outcomes, tasks a, b, c, d, e, f, & g. | 2003 | 2006 | $191,542 |
2. Conclude Milestone Comprehensive Project evaluation. | 2003 | 2003 | $41,200 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
---|---|---|---|
$81,885 | $48,807 | $50,271 | $51,779 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 1.1 | $41,879 |
Fringe | payroll & benefits | $8,376 |
Supplies | office, information & education | $10,645 |
Travel | mileage, per diem | $13,225 |
NEPA | & Biological Assessment | $2,500 |
Subcontractor | M&E | $65,000 |
Other | cost share | $211,000 |
$352,625 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $352,625 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $352,625 |
FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $330,000 |
% change from forecast | 6.9% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Increase is due to projected water lease expense.
Reason for change in scope
Milestone assessments need to be completed. This assessment was postponed, on advise from BPA, based on the premise of "no new work" to be preformed in FY2001. These assessments will validate current restoration activities and guide future project activities based on evaluation findings - adaptive management. Addition of water lease and diversion screening as priority activities.
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
USDA NRCS (proposed) | technical, engineering, evaluation | $50,000 | in-kind |
State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (proposed | instream, riparian | $100,000 | cash |
USFS (proposed) | technical, materials, equipment, evaluation | $20,000 | in-kind |
USFS (proposed) | instream & riparian | $15,000 | cash |
WDFW (proposed) | technical, engineering, materials, evaluation | $15,000 | in-kind |
Columbia County | labor, equipment | $5,000 | in-kind |
Landowners (proposed) | materials, labor, equipment | $10,000 | in-kind |
Washington Conservation Commission | instream, riparian, upland | $30,000 | cash |
WDOE | riparian | $20,000 | cash |
USDA CREP & Continuous CRP | riparian | $50,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable only if an adequate response is provided that addresses the ISRP's concerns. Maps of the subbasin and fish distributions in the proposal were very helpful. The Program has been implementing on-the-ground habitat projects guided by the Plan since 1996. Summary tables of expenditures and tasks accomplished were helpful. A two-year water quality reassessment was completed in March 2001 by WSU Center for Environmental Education and a final report is currently being written. Nevertheless, the results of these assessments were not reported in the project proposal.
This proposal requests an additional $2 million to continue implementation of the Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan. Apparently, the program was initiated based on a premise that fish habitat in the Tucannon River would be improved by"... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment" (page 2). That focus has since been lost and the program now is largely devoted to development of bio-engineered instream structures. This amounts to getting the cart before the horse. The program should return to pursuit of restoring geologic, geomorphic, and riparian processes. The processes restored will determine what stream characteristics can be maintained. Once these processes are restored, bioengineering projects may be appropriate to adjust some conditions.
Monitoring of physical conditions is part of the project. The proposal reports that data were gathered to represent some pre-project conditions and for one year since the projects. These data should be included in the proposal. In the FY2000 Review, the ISRP also commented that the sponsors needed demonstrate the biological benefits of this project. The project history section relates administrative level history of the project, but completely fails to provide any summary of biological benefits achieved to date. The table of tasks completed - weirs installed, feet of fencing installed, etc. - does not constitute a summary of biological benefits achieved.
Objective 1 of the proposal is to "Improve adult pre-spawning survival" and Objective 2 is to "Improve juvenile survival" (page 12). There doesn't seem to be any monitoring of survival to assess progress in meeting these objectives. At minimum, there should be monitoring to determine whether or not survival of the pre-spawning adults and juveniles is increasing as a result of program activities.
The budget raises a number of uncertainties. Under personnel, two PI's are listed, both employees of the Watershed Council, and the budget asks for ~ $40K support for them in their administrative capacities. Budget also lists $65K for monitoring and evaluation to an unspecified subcontractor. The proposal should identify either the specific subcontractor (and provide qualification information) or a set of criteria that the subcontractor must meet in order to conduct the monitoring and evaluation.
Similarly, the budget under Section 8 lists $211K for "cost-share" activities, which seem to be associated with implementation or installation of many of the stream and habitat improvement actions. This is confusing because later in Section 8 the budget lists a separate cost-share section from various collaborators that totals $315K. Likely, the first "cost-share" number is money for subcontracting to implement stream restoration activities. This needs to be clarified and information on the subcontractors or their qualifications and expertise needs to be provided.
Comment:
The proposal needs to be retooled to concentrate on passive restoration approaches (i.e.. fencing and planting). There is disagreement on the level of success of bioengineering solutions and the reviewers would like to see an emphasis on returning ecosystem function to the stream corridor. This project needs to be implemented consistent with limiting factors and problem locations identified in subbasin summaries and eventually subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species. There needs to be oversight by the COTR to ensure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife. We agree with ISRP that no biological benefit has been demonstrated to date as measures of success have been focused on physical structures and population densities near them.Comment:
Not fundable. Sponsors failed to demonstrate prioritization of efforts by a watershed assessment. Project needs refocusing and reorientation, with assistance from of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist and an experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies, and to help identify meaningful controls.This program was initiated based on a premise that fish habitat in the Tucannon River would be improved by"... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment." The ISRP is concerned that the focus of the project appears too have changed to development of bio-engineered instream structures; there is no evidence that the project is improving conditions for fish. A detailed response was provided; however, ISRP reviewers remain committed to the notion that bioengineering projects should be limited to "fine-tuning" once watershed function has been restored. Bio-engineered projects are methods to control a channel; they generally do not produce the geomorphic stability required for a productive watershed.
Sponsors did provide some information to show impact of projects on physical structure of the channel, but none to show the biological benefits. The data (Tables 1 and 2) that were presented are difficult to interpret. Many more pools were reported in 2000 than in 1998, but the stream got wider and shallower. Stream discharge was greater in 2000 than in 1998. It is not clear that these differences are associated with project activities. Data in Table 12 are offered as evidence of benefits for fish, but these data need to be compared to similar data from both control and treatment sites before the alterations were made if it is to have any meaning.
Objective 1 of the proposal is to "Improve adult pre-spawning survival" and Objective 2 is to "Improve juvenile survival." There doesn't seem to be any monitoring of survival to assess progress in meeting these objectives. The original intent of the project was to improve geomorphic stability, but there doesn't seem to be any monitoring of characteristics for a geomorphically stable watershed.
This project needs to return to its original purpose. That is"... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment" The project needs to enlist the services of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist to assist in design and evaluation of projects to facilitate geomorphic stability, and to assess the probability that sufficient change is possible to attain desired conditions, and to help identify an appropriate monitoring strategy. They also need assistance of an experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies and to help identify meaningful controls. These inputs should be in place before new actions are taken.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUAlthough program was initiated based on a premise that fish habitat in the Tucannon River would be improved by "…increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment", the actual focus of the project seems to be development of bio-engineered instream structures; there is no evidence that the project is improving conditions for fish.
Comments
Bioengineering projects should be limited to "fine-tuning" once watershed function has been restored. Bio-engineered projects are methods to control a channel; they generally do not produce the geomorphic stability required for a productive watershed. Sponsors did not provide any information to show biological benefits of projects.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? no
Comment:
"Not Fundable" recommendation for ongoing Tucannon model watershed coordination; Project 199401806
This is a collaborative program that coordinates activities to restore salmonid habitat on private and public lands. The proposed budget requests $352,625 in FY 2002 and $1,133,953 over three years.
The CBFWA and ISRP (p. 112) had similar concerns with the project regarding the current orientation of the project and that the project seems to have refocused on placing instream structures and neglected a watershed approach to their restoration efforts. In additions concerns were raised that there is a lack of evidence that the project has improved conditions in the watershed. BPA recommends funding to maintain the base coordination and planning function for this project.
The coordination that this project provides to the restoration efforts in the watershed is important. This is especially true in regards to the projects association with the Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program (Project # 200001900). On April 5, 2000, the Council approved the step review of the Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program. This recommendation was conditioned on the understanding that WDFW would work on linking the artificial production initiative to the habitat restoration activities in the basin and that future annual reports will place greater detail in their treatment and analysis of data collected. This linkage being the two projects is vital to ensure that habitat efforts are the most beneficial to the captive broodstock program.
Staff recommendation: The staff concludes that the ISRP's comments highlight concerns about the continuing watershed restoration. The staff recommends continued funding of the base program and approaches with meaningful controls for stability, Section 4, 5 (objectives 1b and c, and 2) 6 and 7 pending subbasin planning. These tasks may involve the creation of pool forming structures as identified in the screening assessment as required by NMFS, USFWS and WDFW. The staff recommends that the budget not include funding for Section 5 (objective 1a), installation of instream bio-engineered habitat structures. Bonneville funding for this effort needs to be justified in the Council's subbasin planning process. Budgets for FY 2003 and 2004 need to be refined to reflect the recommended approach in the development of the FY 2002 Budget and SOW.
In addition, the staff concludes that the ISRP criticisms should warrant revisiting the objectives of this project that provides a watershed coordination function (Section 4, objective 1, 2) in the Tucannon watershed. This is an integral role for the coming process of subbasin planning, so the staff recommends maintaining a coordination function while the subbasin planning process is implemented, and provides for linkages to the artificial production initiative in the subbasin.
Budget effect on base program (Project 199401806):
FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
---|---|---|
Increase $252,625 | Increase $304,249 | Increase $318,417 |
[Note: Out year budgets were adjusted proportionally for objective 5 (1a) based on the averaged annual increase as presented in the FY 2002 proposal, to establish fiscal year 2003 and 2004 costs.]
Comment:
Comment:
Contracting difficulties since 2002, working on month to month extension since. Projects on line and will spend on level of budget modification from January. On line for cap of 304K. Everything submitted for 04 contract as off last week.Comment:
FY 2004 proposed amount is consistent with original grant proposal and ISRP recommendation. Sufficient to continue approved project type until subbasin plan is adopted. Projected COLA for FY 2005 will be absorbed to maintain FY 2004 level. All project type will remain consistent with original grant until subbasin plan is adopted and revised proposal submitted.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$318,417 | $318,417 | $318,417 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website