FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 199206800

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 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

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.

Comment:

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:

Comment:

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:

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:

1. Consistent with ISRP comments, address "the larger question of the effectiveness of purchasing small ad hoc parcels of land as a restoration process";
2. a need for more professional assessment of the cumulative benefits of this strategy; and
3. 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:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website