FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 199107800

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

The changes in the budget estimate are due to costs of culverts and road improvements, and water pumping projects. These costs were not anticipated in the previous budget solicitation.

Reason for change in scope

Due in part to the past two years of drought conditions and lack of water on the site, it was determined that a successful habitat enhancement strategy would need to include not only a water control structure, but would need additional means to augment low water levels by: 1) placing three culverts at the north end to augment water flow from a permanent stream (currently lacking on the site), and 2) pumping water onto the site during drought years or when needed so that there would be enough water to control exotic plant species such as reed canary grass.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The proposal is well written, containing adequate detail of the water management plan and various aspects of monitoring. However, several ISRP FY00 comments remain unaddressed; specifically, provision of data summarizing the plant and wildlife surveys, a discussion of the value of the site to fish species, and an evaluation of the length of time requiring funding for the control of non-native species. These questions should be addressed in the response. Additionally, the response should provide more detail on the species that will be affected by opening more wetland habitat. For the response, proponents should refer to the programmatic section of this report on monitoring and evaluation, specifically with regard to use of standard regional protocols.

Comment:

Comment:

There are likely benefits to fish and wildlife but the proposal and response continue to be technically deficient and only partially responsive to ISRP concerns. The discussion of the value of the site to fish species is vague. The response describes the plan and wildlife surveys without much detail on survey design or methods. It does not provide requested data summarizing the surveys. Additionally, the response provides only general detail on the species that will be affected by opening more wetland habitat. However, specific information is provided on the expected length of time needed for exotic species control.

This proposal is one of several similar proposals in the area and for similar work activity. It is difficult to see how all the projects being conducted by different groups fit together. Are they coordinated and complementary, or fragmented?

Comment:

Comments
Waterfowl, amphibian project. Use of water control structures is problematic and requires careful consideration. Recreation of ponds may or may not be aligned with properly functioning conditions for this area. Diversity of approaches and more M&E - fish use and benefit - would be useful

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

Comment:

Willamette Issue 1: Wildlife Habitat Project Funding, Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project (Project 199107800), Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands Phase Two (Project 199205900), Implement Willamette Basin Mitigation Program (Project 199206800) and Protect and Enhance Tualatin River NWF Additions (Project 200001600)

Council Recommendation: The suite of wildlife projects proposed in the Willamette generates the same set of issues and the Council treats them as a group for recommendation purposes. Historically, most Fish and Wildlife Program funding in the Willamette Subbasin has involved mitigation for the construction and inundation losses associated with the series of federal projects on the Willamette system. These projects have primarily been the method of addressing those construction and inundation losses in the Willamette, although some funding for Willamette losses has also come from the Oregon wildlife umbrella project (199705900) covered in the Mainstem/Systemwide review.

All four projects identified above include funding requests for operations and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation and for habitat enhancement activities. Amazon Basin, the Willamette Mitigation and the Tualatin River NWF contain requests for habitat purchases associated with the expansion of the mitigation area (Tualatin and Amazon Basin) or with continued purchase of biologically significant parcels (Willamette). The Willamette project also includes a new objective - the cost share portion of a Corps of Engineers study for floodplain restoration study for the Coast and Middle Forks of the Willamette. Corps funds would come from their General Investigations program and the request for the Willamette project would provide the non- federal cost share for that feasibility study.

The Independent Scientific Review Panel rated all four projects as "Fundable", although they questioned the priority of all four projects. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority rated these projects as a High Priority. NOAA Fisheries comments indicated that although the projects may have some incidental benefits to fish populations, none of the projects implement a Biological Opinion RPA (the FCRPS Biological Opinion does not apply to Willamette stocks). Bonneville had fairly consistent comments on all four projects. BPA supported ongoing Operations and Maintenance and Monitoring and Evaluation funding to preserve past investments as wildlife mitigation. They generally did not support expansion of the projects through habitat purchase. However, Bonneville did indicate that the Willamette project and Amazon Basin could target new acquisitions after "a thorough review of the overall strategy for wildlife mitigation in the Willamette Basin. We [BPA] intend to work with the project sponsors and the Council to investigate alternatives for achieving wildlife mitigation that may be more cost effective than current land acquisitions."

The Council supports the general approach of reducing the current scope of land acquisition in the Willamette Basin. These projects have received ISRP and manager support and merit continued operations and maintenance and monitoring funding to preserve the past investments of the Fish and Wildlife Program. There is apparently no dispute that unmitigated construction and inundation credits remain in the Willamette. Also not in dispute is the crediting ratio for enhancement activities on wildlife mitigation projects, which provide Bonneville with habitat credits at a one-to-one ratio. Thus, the Council recommends funding the aspects of these projects that support habitat enhancement objectives.

The Council believes that given the need to address the Endangered Species Act, particularly as it relates to the Reasonable and Prudent Actions applicable to the Estuary and Lower Columbia mainstem, and to chum salmon recovery (see Lower Columbia and Estuary General Issue 2), will require some temporary change of emphasis to the Fish and Wildlife Program in the Lower Columbia. Therefore, the Council recommends placing a hold on land acquisitions for these projects and reprogramming those funds to address the ESA considerations in these provinces, with one exception.

The Council recommends continued support for at least some acquisition strategy for the overall Willamette Mitigation project 199206800, although we would recommend reducing the scope of habitat acquisition funding by two-thirds of the proposed budget for that task. Per Bonneville's comments, the Council supports a review of the overall strategy of wildlife mitigation in the Willamette. The Council encourages an expedited review of the Willamette mitigation strategy, but believes that acquisitions to address the Bonneville mitigation responsibility should continue, albeit at the recommended reduced scale. The project had a base budget in Fiscal Year 2002 of $2.7 million. The CBFWA proposed amount for Fiscal Year 2003 was $1,567,500 and the Council proposed budget is $938,500.

In Fiscal Year 2003, the Tualatin project (200001600) had a CBFWA proposed budget of $256,000. By removing the acquisition funding, the Council revised budget recommendation is $91,000 for Fiscal Year 2003. Amazon Basin (199205900) had its acquisition funding placed in years two and three of the funding cycle. Under the Council revision, the project's budget decreased to $62,712 in Fiscal Year 2004 from the CBFWA proposed $322,500.

To leverage other funding sources (see Lower Columbia and Estuary General Issue 4), the Council recommends funding the new floodplain restoration study task of project 199206800. The Corps will fund fifty percent of the study costs and will then fund up to 65 percent of implementation costs for projects developed from the study. As the Corps notes in their comments on the project, "[T]he Corps cannot conduct the feasibility study or implement projects without a local match." (Letter of June 21 from Davis Moriuchi, Deputy District Engineer for Project Management.) Similar to leveraging funding opportunities in the Estuary (Columbia Estuary Issue 2), the Council believes that funding this task will help leverage other federal funds and the study results could provide direction for mitigation activities in the Willamette.

All funds for these projects would come from the base funding allocation for the Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website