FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 200105300

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:

Comment:

Comments
Important project that would move chum spawning from mainstem into tributary area not affected by flow and spill problems present at Ives Island. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Columbia Lower Issue 3: Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek (Project 200105300)

Council Recommendation: The Duncan Creek project, proposed by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, would monitor and evaluate the success of restored spawning channels for chum salmon and possibly jump start the population by collecting broodstock for natural or artificial production. Support for the project and its broodstock collection components would trigger the Council's three-step review process for new artificial production related initiatives.

The project has a short, but somewhat convoluted history. This project was originally a High Priority solicitation project* and received a "B" ranking for a limited portion of the proposal from the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)**. The Council did not recommend the $420,796 proposal for funding in its High Priority recommendations made on February 7, 2001 and March 7, 2001.

At the 2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2001 meeting, NOAA Fisheries and BPA agreed to fund the project for $420,795 through the ESA placeholder in the 2001 Fish and Wildlife Program budget. As part of that decision, WDFW was asked to refine the proposal to include better M&E and other activities in response to ISRP's comments and NOAA Fisheries review. BPA also requested additional chum salvage work in case of low water years. The project sponsor developed a new proposal for a total of $841,685.

On July 31, 2001 the Council received from CBFWA a recommendation for additional funding for Project 23040, Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek. The National Marine Fisheries Service had subsequently advised Bonneville in writing that the Biological Opinion for the federal hydropower system requires this project and that it should be funded from a placeholder remaining for Endangered Species Act measures. In addition, the project sponsors subsequently revised the proposal addressing the comments and requests for additional monitoring and "salvage" work anticipated during low flow conditions in the fall of 2001. This revision was the basis for CBFWA's request for an additional $420,890 for the project.

In follow-up to this request, prior to the presentation to the Council, the Council staff discussed with NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville staff the consistency of this proposal with Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) of the Biological Opinion for the federal hydropower system. From these discussions there seemed to be differences between NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville on the application of the project elements to the RPAs. The restoration of spawning habitat for chum below Bonneville Dam is called for by RPA 157. An element of the original proposal, recommended in writing by NOAA Fisheries, would accomplish that work and was supported by the ISRP review. However, the additional artificial propagation, including the "salvage" operation for this year are not clearly identified as an RPA. NOAA Fisheries staff suggested that these may be consistent with RPAs 177 and 178 which call for funding "safety-net" measures for high risk salmon and steelhead populations.

On August 7, 2001 the Council decision was to defer consideration of artificial propagation activities and expanded monitoring components of the Duncan Creek proposal until the Lower Columbia Provincial review, and it requested additional information on the contingency plan for the salvage operation.

Additional discussion among Council, NOAA Fisheries and WDFW staffs occurred to respond to the Council's information request. On August 29th, 2001, the Council recommended that $67,000 to be added to the original $420,795 provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service for the Duncan Creek chum spawning channel rehabilitation project. This additional $67,000 recommended by the Council was to support the contingency salvage operation for adult chum salmon.

CBFWA rated the proposal for the Lower Columbia provincial review as a High Priority. The ISRP provided a fundable recommendation for the benefits to chum, coho and sea-run cutthroat, though they cautioned that chum salmon should not be stocked until a plan for establishment of a wild chum population in the context of a watershed assessment occurs and that monitoring protocols are defined.

NOAA Fisheries commented that Duncan Creek was an important project to move chum spawning from the mainstem to the tributaries and believed it addressed RPAs 156 and 157. Bonneville supported funding the project and agreed with NOAA Fisheries that the restoration efforts would implement RPAs 156 and 157.

The Council agrees that Duncan Creek potentially has substantial benefits for chum salmon restoration and would recommend funding the project. We do note that the taking of captive broodstock and the potential of artificial production would trigger a Three-Step review under the Fish and Wildlife Program. That Step review would then allow the Council to focus on addressing the ISRP concerns of conducting a watershed assessment and defining monitoring protocols prior to the stocking of a chum population. Therefore, funds associated with artificial production contained in the Construction and Implementation (objectives 3, 4 and 5) and Monitoring and Evaluation (objectives 3,4,5,6,7, and 8) budgets for the project are conditioned upon initiating, and then receiving a favorable three-step review decision by the Council. Funds for the Duncan Creek project would come from the base budget allocation for these provinces.

  * The "High Priority" project solicitation funded by the Bonneville Power Administration during Fiscal Year 2001, was intended to address projects resulting in immediate, on-the-ground benefits to threatened and endangered species of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. This funding was not intended to build infrastructure or capacity that requires separate follow-on funding in subsequent fiscal years to do the on-the-ground implementation. Additional activities of the kind approved for funding in a "High Priority" project were to be proposed for funding in FY 2002 on their own merits in the appropriate province review.

** The ISRP reviewed the project in the High Priority process. It limited recommendation for the project: "Objective 1 of the proposal meets the High Priority criteria, namely creation or cleaning up of the spawning grounds. The remainder of the objectives does not meet the threshold criteria of one-time funding for on-the-ground benefits. Natural recolonization by the remnant chum stock in Duncan Creek should be pursued prior to introduction of outside stock. The proposal might be funded at a reduced level for work on the spawning sites." (From ISRP 2001-1: High Priority Review).

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website