FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199404200

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

Increase in monitoring and evaluation scope due to additional stream gages and increased redd count survey, and increased photo point/cross sectional surveys. Additional planning and design manpower due to complexity of channel reconfiguration/ Riparian restoration. Increase in complexity of permitting process with ESA listed species (Mid Columbia Summer Steelhead).

Reason for change in scope

Additional monitoring and evaluation work in basin will assist in location and design of project work and to monitor long term biotic response to existing and future restoration work. Design and implementation of stream gages will assist in determining stream discharge and basin hydraulic dynamics. This will increase the ability to design successful cost effective project activities with the highest probability to promote positive aquatic responses and assist in the development of future projects. Increased discharge information will assist in designing and negotiating for higher efficiency irrigation practices.

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. When will the watershed assessment be completed? Several times in this proposal, such as p. 13, Section 4, Objective 2, Task a, the objective indicates that an action is required (e.g., locate a suitable site). The project is 7 years old and we would expect that many of these logistical decisions would have been made by this time. If so, the sites should be identified (and their selection justified). If not, some description of the selection criteria and the anticipated timeline is warranted

When will development of long-term action plan be completed? What methods will be used to develop the plan?

How will a basin-wide M&E plan be developed? What methods will be used? Smolt counts are the primary M&E indicator but the 3 years of a single count for the entire watershed are variable, perhaps related to flow, and it can't be determined how smolt production relates to restoration activities or other factors. What are the details of the outmigrating smolt trapping/sampling? The number of spawners each year is necessary to an understanding of the production of smolts: how can you estimate numbers of spawners in the watershed each year? What are the statistical methods for counting redds? How big a problem is lack of cooperation from landowners in counting redds?

How will sites be chosen for monitoring upper basin discharge and flow? Are there existing sites and if so, how were they chosen, and what will the new sites add?

What evidence is there that methods of restoration (for instance juniper riprap) are effective? Why are these methods used and others (streamside plantings, riparian buffers) not used?

What evidence is there that measures of habitat, e.g. pool area, have improved during the project?

What proportion of the existing habitat needs do you estimate will be covered through agreements with willing landowners? How serious a problem is non-cooperation?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
A completed watershed assessment should form the basis of the restoration plan and provide context for projects. Specific information about the choice of sites or evidence for habitat improvement is lacking. The monitoring plan and methods are currently

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

1. Completion of the watershed assessment (in cooperation with project 1998-028-00) and project planning (Planning and Design Objective 1, tasks a, b, and c).
2. O&M of existing habitat improvements (part of O&M Objective 1).
3. Ongoing M&E, subject to a review of needs, methods, potential redundancy and coordination (e.g., with proposed projects 25010 and 25088), and funding responsibilities.

Trout Creek has received substantial BPA investments (especially relative to its size) in the past, and at least $1.1 million has been requested for FY02 (projects 1994-042-00, 1998-028-00, and 25040), exclusive of requests for more global M&E projects (i.e., 25010 and 25088) that would include this watershed. We believe that fully funding these Trout Creek requests may unduly limit funds for other projects, subbasins, and provinces where needs may be greater.

This project and project no. 1998-028-00 are pursuing similar tasks and could gain efficiencies in administration, supervision, and overhead costs if combined or reallocated. Trout Creek has over 6 FTE for habitat work between the two projects. This appears excessive this far into implementation. Approximately 70% of the anadromous fish-bearing streams are presently covered by protective agreements, and we recognize this as the fruits of many years of productive effort by the project sponsor, cooperating landowners, and other local partners. We wish to maintain those benefits through appropriate O&M in 2002 and to ensure that any future agreements – based on priorities following completion of the watershed assessment – will provide high value relative to needs/opportunities for BPA funding in other subbasins and provinces.

We also wish to evaluate all habitat M&E in the watershed, particularly with respect to ongoing commitments for BPA funding. For example, the need for annual steelhead smolt monitoring needs better justification. Now that three years of data have been collected, consideration should be given to waiting 3-5 years and repeating the monitoring effort. In the meantime, the equipment and perhaps personnel could gather similar data in other watersheds. We appreciate the use of a biological target (i.e., 100,000 smolts per year), but recommend that the target might better be defined in terms of smolts per index redd (or other measure of spawning escapement). Spawning ground counts should continue in some form (see comment on random sampling, below). Like smolt monitoring, temperature monitoring also may not require annual measurements, i.e., gather base data, and then repeat the monitoring every 3-5 years for comparison. BPA must consider the cumulative costs of such annual monitoring when undertaken throughout the Columbia River Basin. Also, with additional habitat work being undertaken, enough time must be allowed to measure any differences in temperature as the habitat work is completed and becomes effective. Monitoring and evaluation work proposed through this project must also be reconciled with new proposals (25010 and 25088) to employ different methods in Oregon streams including Trout Creek. For example, how might this project incorporate random sampling designs (e.g., EMAP) to provide more useful data and/or cost savings?

BPA recognizes the value of the enhancement work performed in Trout Creek and the opportunity that the watershed provides to measure the effectiveness of that habitat enhancement work. However, we do not support funding for any new M&E in this project in 2002 or continuation of M&E beyond 2002 until a comprehensive, well integrated, and well-justified M&E plan is developed for the Trout Creek watershed.

Comment:

Other remaining tasks focus around design of an action plan and identification of projects and project locations -- tasks that should be completed after developing a subbasin plan. The Staff recommends not funding the completion of the watershed assessment as defined. Not recommended for funding are activities in Section 5, objective 1 task a and objective 2 task a (non-passive. Action plan and monitoring plan development, however valuable, are meaningful in the context of a completed subbasin assessment and subbasin plan, and should be funded through the subbasin planning budget, or other means.

Budget effect on base program (Project 199404200):   

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website