FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200104100

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:

Comment:

Comment:

Response: While preparing the original proposal, staff reviewed the criteria for high priority projects as described in the NWPPC's 2000 program. Those criteria, as well as the entire Program section discussing high priority projects, is completely silent regarding the topics of O&M and M&E funding. Further, none of the criteria detailed in the 13 November 2000 letter from the NWPPC and BPA to the fish and wildlife managers, referred to O&M or M&E funding. The letter stated that "proposals should clearly identify any required funding for operation and maintenance of the project or for monitoring and evaluation" (emphasis added) although again, this requirement was not part of the criteria. Consequently, O&M and M&E items were included in both the budget and the narrative. Also, the O&M and M&E items were incorporated into other discussions pertinent to the actual review criteria. For example, property-specific monitoring items were included in the section that responded to the "collaborative efforts" review criteria, since this task is conducted in cooperation with other agencies and organizations.

Objectives/Tasks 2, 3(a), and 4 provide an itemized listing of O&M and M&E funding items. In addition, to page 12 (paragraph 2 & 4; discussion of additional property actions), page 15 (paragraph 2; discussion of monitoring), and the Tasks and Methods section (detailed explanation of tasks identified for funding in the budget) provide additional illustrations within the narrative. It is believed that the budget section meets the NWPPC/BPA requirement to "clearly identify any required funding" for O&M and M&E and do not concur with the ISRP that O&M and M&E were review criteria for high priority projects. In hindsight, all tasks dealing with O&M and M&E should have been specifically referred to as being within these categories, in order to further meet the NPPC/BPA direction and for ease in review.

ISRP Comment: The proposal is to acquire a large ranch with over 12 miles of the upper mainstem and upper Middle Fork of the John Day River. It is high priority in that it is very likely time limited. The ISRP supports the proposal and suggests that the acquisition might be funded at a reduced level for earnest money or acquisition only while a proposal for long-term O&M and M&E is prepared and reviewed as part of the regular rolling review that is to take place in this Province in the Spring of 2001.

Response: The ISRP's support is appreciated. However, the reviewer(s) should approach with caution, the idea of funding the project at the earnest money level only since there is no guarantee that the acquisition and/or O&M/M&E funding would be appropriated through the provincial review process. The John Day is clearly being recognized as one of the top priority subbasins in the Columbia River basin. This project should receive due consideration for full funding based upon its long-standing priority in the subbasin and the immediate risk to listed species if the acquisition is lost. The splitting of appropriations between programs and program years can leads to excessive delays and escalating capital acquisition and management costs. Thus, appropriating earnest money only is not commensurate with the high priority nature of the property or the risks involved with delaying the acquisition.

As discussed in the narrative, the Tribes are completing much of the pre-acquisition planning and monitoring/evaluation using their own funds and as a result will continue these efforts regardless of the level of O&M/M&E support provided under the high priority or provincial reviews. It is difficult to justify preparing a complete and comprehensive O&M/M&E plan at the proposal stage since the property has not been secured and access for information gathering to support these plans has been limited in past years. Further, large Tribal expenditures to develop comprehensive plans prior to the acquisition may be premature as they may eventually become lost investments if acquisition funds are not appropriated. To-date, the Tribes have expended funds on tasks that supported the acquisition, since this was our first priority. As stated in the narrative proposal, following the acquisition, detailed O&M and M&E plans will be developed.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Furthermore this project is a "time-limited" opportunity and a "one-time" only funding commitment with immediate "on the ground" tangible biological benefits.

Other criteria that the project meets are: the project is largely self-sustaining after project completion, the project has measurable/quantitative biological objectives resulting in 'species' survival benefits, provides connectivity, and improves conditions in a 303d, water quality-limited stream.

The project also fulfills more than one criterion above, provides for cost-sharing with other entities, is part of a collaborative effort with other entities or has a synergistic effect with, is recommended by an action plan derived from science-based assessment, and is approved by Tribal and/or state authority with F&W management authority. In addition, the project proposal details a baseline monitoring program as well as intended techniques to monitor project effects.

Meets BiOp objectives - the project protects existing high quality habitat, restores degraded habitat to properly functioning conditions, improves water quality of 303d listed streams, and provides habitat "connectivity".

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: