FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 199206800
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 |
---|---|
199206800 Narrative | Narrative |
199206800 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
199206800 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Lower Columbia: Willamette Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Lower Columbia: Willamette Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Implement Willamette Basin Mitigation Program |
Proposal ID | 199206800 |
Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Gregory B. Sieglitz |
Mailing address | 7118 NE Vandenberg Ave. Corvallis, OR 97370 |
Phone / email | 5417574186 / greg.b.sieglitz@state.or.us |
Manager authorizing this project | Gregory B. Sieglitz |
Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
Short description | Mitigate for impacts caused by hydro-electric facilities through enhancements, easements, acquisitions, restoration, and management of wetlands and other NWPPC target habitat types and species in the Willamette Basin in Oregon. |
Target species | All 19 NWPPC Fish and Wildlife Program target wildlife species in the Willamette Basin and Sensitive, Threatened, Endangered, and at-risk species. Fish species include: spring Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, Oregon chub, bull trout, cutthroat trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
44.0665 | -122.9102 | 107 ac. Big Island site in lower McKenzie River focus area northeast of Springfield, Oregon |
45.2881 | -122.6792 | 22 ac. Canby Landing site in the Canby Ferry focus area northwest of Canby, Oregon |
43.9518 | -122.9992 | 265 ac. Crocker site in the Coast Fork Willamette River focus area north of Creswell, Oregon |
44.7518 | -122.8934 | 120 ac. Koenig site in the lower North Santiam River focus area near Wiseman Island |
44.5205 | -123.2944 | 221 ac. Herbert site in the Muddy Creek/Mary's River confluence focus area south of Corvallis, Oregon |
43.9845 | -122.962 | 44 ac. Sorenson site in the Coast Fork Willamette River focus area west of Pleasant Hill, Oregon |
43.9957 | -122.9746 | 220 ac. South Pasture site in the Coast Fork Willamette River focus area northeast of Goshen, Oregon |
44.7922 | -122.6596 | 560 ac. Stout Mountain site in the lower North Santiam River focus area west of Lyons, Oregon |
43.9769 | -122.8817 | 130 ac. Fall Creek confluence in the Upper Middle Fork Willamette focus area east of Jasper, Oregon |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
RPA 150 |
RPA 152 |
RPA 153 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1993 | Inventory of western pond turtle population in Confluence area. Final report. |
1994 | Inventory of western pond turtle population in remaining Willamette Basin suitable habitat. Final report. |
1995 | Background information collected and inventory of potential mitigation sites conducted. |
" | Telemetry of turtle population. |
1996 | Began development of partnerships for habitat projects on public lands. |
" | Graduate project and summary of turtle telemetry. |
1997 | GIS developed and ConfluenceAtlas of GIS data produced. |
" | Hydrologic data of Confluence area report compiled. Alternatives Team final report. |
" | Confluence HEP sampling and final report. |
" | Alternatives Team final report. |
1998 | Purchase of 44 acre riparian forest and agricultural land. |
" | Identified and prioritized two new focus areas in the basin. |
" | Developed partnership with McKenzie River Trust and Watershed Council. |
" | HEP and NEPA surveys conducted on 44 acre site. |
1999 | Technical Advisory Group formed. |
" | Photo point monitoring methods established. |
" | Revegetation of portion of 44 acre site. |
" | Non-native vegetation removal on 220 and 44 acre project areas. |
" | Appraisals and HEP and NEPA surveys conducted on 200 acre and 66 acre sites. |
2000 | Reforestation and non-native vegetation removal of portion of 44 acre and 220 acre sites. |
" | Completed hydrogeomorphic index for Willamette Basin fish and wildlife habitats. |
" | Finalize ca.1850 vegetation map of basin. |
" | Appraisals and HEP and NEPA surveys and purchase of 53 and 54 acre sites. |
2001 | Reforestation and non-native vegetation removal of portion of 44 acre and 220 acre sites. |
" | Completed HEP Report for 53 and 54 acre sites. |
" | Developed historic and current vegetation GIS analysis for each project area. |
" | Appraisals and HEP and NEPA surveys completed on 22 acre, 66 acre, 40 acre, and 221 acre sites. |
" | Options secured on 22 acre and 221 acre sites. |
2002 | Reforestation and non-native vegetation removal of portion of 44 acre and 220 acre sites. |
" | Produced current aerial photograph and public land ownership map atlas for Willamette River. |
" | Appraisals and HEP and NEPA surveys on 30 acre and 265 acre sites. |
" | Preliminary fish sampling on 53 acre site discovered Endangered Oregon Chub-first documentation since 1899. |
" | Negotiating options on 30 acre and 265 acre sites. |
" | Completed Final Management Plan for 220 acre site. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
199506500 | Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Using GAP Analysis | A mitigation planning tool used to analyze and rank potential mitigation projects within the basin |
199208400 | Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project | A mitigation planning tool that includes methods for assembling a trust agreement and a list of potential mitigation projects |
199107800 | Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project | First mitigation site in Willamette basin Implementation, surveys and equipment shared |
199205900 | Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands | Second mitigation site in Willamette basin Implementation, surveys, information, and knowledge shared |
200008800 | Assess McKenzie Watershed Habitat and Prioritize Projects | Information gathered is shared between projects. Implementation os prioritized needs is implemented in part through the Willamette Program |
199607000 | McKenzie River Focus Watershed Coordination | Provides coordination, assessment, documentation, and collaboration in McKenzie watershed of project area |
199405300 | Bull Trout Assessment-Willamette/McKenzie | Baseline data for bull trout which will be applied to acquisition and enhancement actions in McKenzie and upper Willamette systems |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Assist BPA with NEPA compliance by conducting necessary surveys on 3 project areas per year | a. Develop any necessary agreements to work on public and private lands | on-going | $6,550 | |
1. | b. Coordinate and assist with cultural resource surveys | on-going | $25,200 | Yes |
1. | c. Coordinate and assist with hazardous materials surveys | on-going | $25,200 | Yes |
1. | d. Coordinate and assist with Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species surveys | on-going | $2,600 | |
1. | e. Evaluate enhancement measures using BPA NEPA checklists | on-going | $2,700 | |
2. Complete habitat enhancement and management plans for 1 project area/year | a. Facilitate meetings with stakeholders | on-going | $18,300 | |
2. | b. Develop goals, objectives, and strategies for site-specific habitat improvements and maintenance | on-going | $31,200 | |
2. | c. Produce document outlining strategies | on-going | $14,000 | |
NEW OBJECTIVE 3. Develop and implement a comprehensive floodplain restoration plan for the Middle and Coast forks of the Willamette River in cooperation with the USACOE, Oregon State Parks and others | a. Inventory and analyze base conditions and establish a framework for collaboration and coordination | 1 | $49,000 | |
3. | b. Collect, Organize and analyze existing data/identify data gaps for further technical analysis | 1 | $25,000 | |
3. | c. Develop a digital elevation model | 2 | $42,000 | Yes |
3. | d. Develop an unsteady state flow model | 2 | $35,000 | Yes |
3. | e. Develop ecological response models | 2 | $30,000 | |
3. | f. Conduct a comprehensive real estate appraisal and analysis | 2 | $47,000 | Yes |
3. | g. Establish criteria to evalaute and prioritize restoration alternatives | 3 | $20,000 | |
3. | h. Develop and describe a comprehensive floodplain restoration plan and establish a long-term implementation program | 3 | $30,000 | |
3. | i. conduct environmental compliance | 3 | $29,000 | |
3. | j. Prepare and submit a final feasibility report | 3 | $38,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Assist BPA with NEPA compliance by conducting necessary surveys on 3 project areas per year | 2003 | 2007 | $285,000 |
2. Complete habitat enhancement and management plans for 1 project area/year | 2003 | 2007 | $235,000 |
3. Develop and implement a comprehensive floodplain restoration plan for the Middle and Coast forks of the Willamette River in cooperation with the USACOE, Oregon State Parks and others | 2003 | 2005 | $1,200,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$486,700 | $503,300 | $108,300 | $112,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Protect 3 sites/year using perpetual conservation easements, acquisition, and Intergovenmental Agreements | a. Conduct real estate appraisals on prioritized sites. | 3 | $20,000 | Yes |
1. | b. Negotiate easements, Memoranda of Agreement, and Intergovernmental Agreements | 3 | $35,000 | |
1. | c. Secure legal interest in habitat areas Current sites include 60 acres in the lower McKenzie River, 50 acres in the Muddy Creek/Mary’s River Confluence, and 100 acres in the Upper Middle Fork Willamette focus areas | 3 | $830,000 | |
2. Restore or enhance hydrologic connectivity in riparian, wetland, and floodplain areas on at least 1 project area/year | a. Remove artificial barriers to functional hydrologic system | 3 | $10,000 | |
2. | b. Enhance existing hydrologic features to provide better functionality | 3 | $15,000 | |
2. | c. In some cases construct artificial features to allow mimicry of natural function | 3 | $5,000 | Yes |
3. Eliminate competing non-native vegetation on 10 - 50 acres/year of restoration lands where feasible | a. Remove or discourage reed canary grass, scotch broom, Himalaya blackberry and others through inundation, shading, and by hand | on-going | $6,500 | |
3. | b. In severe cases remove with equipment | on-going | $14,575 | |
3. | c. Apply herbicides, if necessary, where risks can be minimized | on-going | $3,000 | |
4. Plant native vegetation on 20-100 acres/year in areas where restoration of hydrologic function and removal of non-natives is insufficient to promote natives | a. Prepare site with equipment or by hand | on-going | $7,300 | |
4. | b. Plant vegetation | on-going | $14,000 | |
4. | c. Irrigate or otherwise promote establishment when necessary | on-going | $15,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Protect 3 sites/year using perpetual conservation easements, acquisition, and Intergovenmental Agreements | 2003 | 2005 | $2,020,000 |
2. Restore or enhance hydrologic connectivity in riparian, wetland, and floodplain areas on at least 1 project area/year | 2003 | 2005 | $108,000 |
3. Eliminate competing non-native vegetation on 10 - 50 acres/year of restoration lands where feasible | 2003 | 2007 | $115,000 |
4. Plant native vegetation on 20-100 acres/year in areas where restoration of hydrologic function and removal of non-natives is insufficient to promote natives | 2003 | 2007 | $134,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$1,008,500 | $1,043,000 | $182,828 | $189,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Eliminate non-native vegetation expansion on project sites | a. Remove vectors such as roads and fill | 3 | $15,500 | Yes |
1. | b. Hand remove vegetation, and in some cases fish and wildlife species, where effective | on-going | $2,050 | |
1. | c. Remove vegetation using equipment when necessary | on-going | $16,750 | |
1. | d. Use herbicides where effective and safe | on-going | $1,000 | |
2. Prevent loss of hydrologic function and suitability of restoration sites | a. Perform maintenance on hydrologic connections, water control structures, and pumps | on-going | $1,750 | |
3. Ensure preservation of investments in habitat protection and restoration by visiting project sites | a. Maintain fences, gates, signs, roadways, trails, irrigation systems, etc. | on-going | $1,200 | |
4. Prevent tools and equipment from becoming obsolete or worn-out | a. Perform routine maintenance to tools and equipment including computers | on-going | $2,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Eliminate non-native vegetation expansion on project sites | 2003 | 2007 | $136,000 |
2. Prevent loss of hydrologic function and suitability of restoration sites | 2003 | 2007 | $7,200 |
3. Ensure preservation of investments in habitat protection and restoration by visiting project sites | 2003 | 2007 | $6,500 |
4. Prevent tools and equipment from becoming obsolete or worn-out | 2003 | 2007 | $13,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$42,100 | $43,500 | $45,000 | $46,500 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Determine survival, health and success of restoration actions through surveys and site visits. | a. Use aerial photos,ground photo points, GPS, and GIS for monitoring vegetative and hydrologic changes | on-going | $6,200 | |
1. | b. Evaluate planting and cultivation methodology and determine correlation to survivability at replating sites | on-going | $6,300 | |
1. | c. Determine correlation of micro-site deviations with survivability of plantings at replanting sites | on-going | $750 | |
1. | d. Determine correlation of age class and species with survivability at replanting sites | on-going | $6,375 | |
1. | e. Monitor mortality of vegetative plantings and attempt to determine cause | on-going | $6,000 | |
2. Estimate the change in habitat suitability to target fish and wildlife species as restoration sites mature | a. Conduct periodic HEP sampling to quantify and qualify expected wildlife use | on-going | $7,000 | |
2. | b. Conduct fish and wildlife surveys with established protocols to detemine actual use | on-going | $6,000 | |
2. | c. Quantify the extent of habitat changes using aerial photography, GIS and GPS | on-going | $5,000 | |
3. Conduct hydrologic analyses to establish most effective techniques for restoring functionality and monitor result | a. Develop subcontract | 2003 | $32,000 | Yes |
3. | b. Monitor ground water depth and seasonality and periodicity of inundation at wetland restoration sites | on-going | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1. Determine survival, health and success of restoration actions through surveys and site visits. | 2003 | 2007 | $130,000 |
2. Estimate the change in habitat suitability to target fish and wildlife species as restoration sites mature | 2003 | 2007 | $100,000 |
3. Conduct hydrologic surveys to establish most effective techniques for restoring functionality and monitor result | 2003 | 2007 | $110,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|---|---|
$52,300 | $84,000 | $56,000 | $89,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 5 | $165,852 |
Fringe | @38% | $63,025 |
Supplies | $109,300 | |
Travel | $9,058 | |
Indirect | @24.5% | $85,073 |
Capital | $830,000 | |
NEPA | $84,000 | |
Subcontractor | $221,192 | |
$1,567,500 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost | $1,567,500 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2003 budget request | $1,567,500 |
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $2,235,000 |
% change from forecast | -29.9% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
The budget decrease reflects the change recognized by the project proponents that the NWPPC, ISRP, and BPA are favoring a more reserved approach to land acquisition and more coordinated approaches to achieving mitigation objectives and comlpiance with ESA with action agencies such as NMFS and USACOE. In addition, the project proponents are attempting to propose a budget for land acquisition that is perhaps more realistic than that projected in the FY 2001 proposal. See additional budget notes below.
Reason for change in scope
A new objective (#3) has been added under which ODFW will work cooperatively with USACOE to develop and implement a comprehensive floodplain restoration study of the Middle and Coast forks of the Willamette. The Corps has the authority to conduct this study under their General Investigations program. Local funds (including BPA program funds) will be matched 50/50 by the Corps. Any restoration projects identified as a result of the study may be eligible for additional Corps funding up to as much as 65% of the total cost. The Middle and Coast forks were identified as a high priority reach for a comprehensive study of this nature because of the potential for restoring floodplain function and habitat below Corps dams and the interest in and support for the study by other stakeholders, including Oregon State Parks. It is anticipated that a focused study of this nature on two tributaries will serve as a pilot for other mainstem and tributary reaches in the basin.
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | Coordination and 50% match for G.I. study, 65% match for any project implemented as study outcome | $1,515,000 | cash |
City of Corvallis | 50% acquisition funds and staff for planning, implementation and management of 221 acre site | $450,000 | cash |
Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department | 106 acres of land for restoration and staff for planning, implementation, and management | $318,000 | in-kind |
Trust for Public Land | Funds and staff for securing properties | $25,000 | in-kind |
City of Canby | 50% acquisition funds and staff for planning, implementation and management of 22 acre site | $275,000 | cash |
Lane County Waste Management | 50% acquisition funds and staff for planning, implementation and management of 265 acre site | $500,000 | cash |
Lane County Parks | Over 2,000 acres of land, staff and equipment | $2,100,000 | in-kind |
Springfield Utility Board, City of Springfield, Willamalane Parks and Recreation Department | Over 300 acres of land and staff | $500,000 | in-kind |
Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department | Funding of appraisal and portion of acquisition costs of 30 acre site | $28,000 | cash |
McKenzie River Trust | Funding for acquisition and staff for planning, implementation and management | $30,000 | cash |
River Network | Funds and staff for securing properties | $10,000 | in-kind |
Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah | Funding for restoration and enhancement and staff for planning, implementation, and management | $110,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
The change in the FY 2003 budget reflects the reduction in land acquisition activities from the FY 2001 projections. This shift is accompanied by the new objective in Planning and Design to meet the NWPPC, ISRP, and BPA desires to more fully integrate their mitigation actions with other relevant activities in the subbasin. Additionally, this change is reflecting the needs identified in the Willamette Subbasin Summary and the NMFS Draft Biological Opinion. P&D out year budgets reflect the new objective of working with the USACOE in FY 04&05 while 06&07 show a reduction of FY2001 projections. C&I out year budgets show a shift from large acquisition dollars funded by BPA in FY06. O&M and M&E budgets hold close to FY2001 projections with the exception of an increase in M&E every other year for contracting of hydrologic services.
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
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The proposal is for a large-scale effort in habitat acquisition, enhancement, restoration and management in the Willamette Basin. The expectation is to add 200-300 HUs each year for 5 years through the implementation of 2-3 mitigation projects.The background and significance to regional programs is clear and thorough. The project history provides some assessment of progress that the ISRP requested last year, although not quantified or presented in tables. Objectives list a rather complicated series of tasks related to project planning, implementation, O&M of existing projects, and monitoring and evaluation.
The response should discuss the appropriateness of the evaluation methods described. Past results should be quantitatively presented with more evaluation of progress. The response should also explain the budget numbers for tasks under Objective 1, which seem high.
Comment:
A new objective has been included in this proposal.Comment:
Fundable but low priority because of the limitations of the project. The proposal is for a large-scale effort in habitat acquisition, enhancement, restoration and management in the Willamette Basin. The background and significance to regional programs is clear and thorough. The expectation is to add 200-300 HUs each year for 5 years through the implementation of 2-3 mitigation projects. The project history provides some assessment of progress that the ISRP requested last year, although not quantified or presented in tables. Objectives list a rather complicated series of tasks related to project planning, implementation, O&M of existing projects, and monitoring and evaluation.This is an ongoing program in which people have seen value in the past, but it needs to be better designed. The response lacks technical depth and is only marginally adequate. The proposed use of graduate students is not well thought out: turning responsibility over to graduate students for development of a sample design, sampling and data analysis is inappropriate and will not ensure quality results. Objectives of the analysis, the sample design and data to be collected should be clearly described in advance of the project, rather than left to students to develop. The students would have to be supervised at each step. The response is similarly vague with reference to enlisting help of professional hydrologists and geomorphologists.
Finally, the response fails to address the larger question of the effectiveness of purchasing small ad hoc parcels of land as a restoration process. Does it have a cumulative beneficial effect that amounts to significant gain? Overall, there is a need for far more professional assessment in this project.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotential to protect and enhance spawning and rearing habitat
Comments
Good outreach and way to diversify and leverage habitat protection by acquisition/easement and to restore/enhance these habitat. Good mechanism to identify, prioritize, and track projects.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend funding of O&M and M&E portion of the project for preservation of existing investment as a wildlife mitigation project. Recommend funding new acquisitions only if the following concerns are addressed:- Consistent with ISRP comments, address "the larger question of the effectiveness of purchasing small ad hoc parcels of land as a restoration process";
- a need for more professional assessment of the cumulative benefits of this strategy; and
- ensure that the habitat types and species affected by reservoir inundation are being targeted by the mitigation program.
We recommend a thorough review of the overall strategy for wildlife mitigation in the Willamette Basin. We 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.
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:
Fund as RecommendedComment:
Spending target of 525K. Difference is the figure for land acquisition of Green Island. 413K. Contract has not yet been finalized for 03, but should be done in a week. Will not spend all the allocation of this year. Floodplain study component is moving forward, but some of those tasks could be delayed for lateness of contract. Acquisition could take place in 04, so 04 dollars would remain the same, based upon capitalization discussion.Comment:
Spending target of 525K. Difference is the figure for land acquisition of Green Island. 413K. Contract has not yet been finalized for 03, but should be done in a week. Will not spend all the allocation of this year. Floodplain study component is moving forward, but some of those tasks could be delayed for lateness of contract. Acquisition could take place in 04, so 04 dollars would remain the same, based upon capitalization discussion.Comment:
Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$350,000 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website