FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199603501

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

Recent implemention of the Endangered Species Act has opened up several new cost sharing opportunities to further restore the natural resources of the Satus Watershed. Participating organizations include the: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington State Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Reason for change in scope

To facilitate and participate in several new restoration opportunities.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Fundable only if an adequate response is provided.

The Yakama Nation owns the entire watershed of 612 square miles. It is unique in that no flow is diverted. Steelhead are present, with 155 redds last year. Some fish and fish habitat information is presented. The project has been working to decrease water temperature in lower 20+ miles of stream, consistent with subbasin summary and NMFS BiOp goals.

Good cost share is included. Proposed budget is a 120% increase from forecast because of "new cost share opportunities" that are not identified. The monitoring and evaluation is adequate. Much of this project is livestock management that was largely absent from the proposal but given a bit more clearly in the presentation.

This looks like a valuable project that should continue, but a response is needed on a the following items:

1. What are those cost share opportunities that would so increase costs over the forecast?
2. We need more info on grazing - how many AUMs in past and in future; what is a brief description of the plan (mostly herding?) to reduce grazing impacts in addition to retiring 40% of the leases; where are exclosures mentioned but never described and what do they show; and indication if future grazing might defeat the effectiveness of stream rehab efforts (riparian plantings and instream habitat placement).

Reviewers again (as in the previous review) noted a conspicuous absence of literature citations, and that weakened the proposal. We also wish to strongly encourage project personnel to be more active in publishing and presenting results of the project. The range rider will help move cattle out of the stream bottoms.

Comment:

Comment:

The "new cost share opportunities" that would increase the proposed budget over that forecast were satisfactorily identified.

Comment:

Comments
Although steelhead are present, with 155 redds in 2000, project has been funded for several years with little reported in the way of habitat improvement. The project has been working to decrease water temperature in lower 20+ miles of stream, consistent with subbasin summary and NMFS BiOp goals. Chronic reliance on labor intensive cattle control, although details of livestock management is largely absent from this proposal. How many AUMs in past & in future -- what is brief description of the plan (mostly herding) to reduce grazing impacts in addition to retiring 40% of the leases? Will future grazing defeat the effectiveness of stream rehabilitation (riparian plantings & instream habitat placement)? Have vegetation performance standards been adopted. If so, are they being met? Good cost share, though, is included.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Comment:

Funding increases for ongoing projects above the standard Fiscal Year 2001 budget plus 3.4%.

As discussed above in the general issues, the general principle applied to ongoing projects has been to hold them at their Fiscal Year 2001 approved budget levels plus 3.4%. In prioritizing the available funds, local entities and managers agreed that some ongoing projects should have their budgets increased in order to meet local priorities and address ESA based needs. The following ongoing projects are recommended for funding increases above the general 3.4% increase:

Project ID: 199603501: Satus Watershed Restoration Project

NMFS has designated this project as consistent with the overall BiOp off-site mitigation strategy and actions (assigning it a"400" rating) as a riparian implementation project. This is an ongoing watershed scale restoration project intended to protect and enhance habitat for the native threatened summer steelhead stock, and a variety of cultural and natural resources. The ISRP finds, "It is clear that project activities have succeeded in reduction and management of grazing; the review panel now looks forward, in future reviews, to seeing those results translated into additional restoration of fish habitat and fish numbers."

Budget effect on base program (Project 199603501):

Habitat acquisition proposals.

There are many proposals (both new and ongoing) that focus on habitat acquisition in the Yakima subbasin (25002, 25020, 25024, 25025, 25032, 25078, 199206200, 199603501, and 199705100). Some of these proposals focus on acquisitions of habitat primarily as a strategy to benefit listed anadromous fish, others appear to focus on habitat for wildlife, and others appear to address both. Given the limits available under the target budget for Fiscal Year 2002, each of these projects cannot be fully funded. In order to prioritize among these proposals, the Council may wish to consider the following. First, as stated throughout this memorandum, those proposals that received consensus support by local resource managers that are consistent with the BiOp or are consistent with its off-site mitigation strategy are favored. This would prioritize those acquisition proposals that are exclusively or primarily designed to benefit anadromous fish. Further, the Council should consider its program language that puts a priority on mitigating for wildlife habitat losses in areas of the basin where mitigation efforts have lagged. This program principle was one of the driving considerations for the Council's support for extensive habitat acquisition funding in the Mountain Columbia and Inter-Mountain provinces completed earlier. The Yakima subbasin has received substantial mitigation funding for construction/inundation losses to wildlife habitat in the past, and is not, relatively speaking, an area where wildlife mitigation efforts are lagging behind.

Projects 25024, 25025, 25078, 199603501, 199206200 and 199705100 all have a substantial focus on protecting habitat for listed anadromous fish in the Yakima subbasin. In addition, the first five of those projects were identified in the local collaborative process as priority projects. (See Yakima Issues 1 and 2 above). On the other hand, project 25020, 25002, and 25032, while apparently meritorious projects based on the ISRP and CBFWA reviews, have a substantial wildlife habitat component.

Staff recommendation: In light of the above considerations -- emphasis on anadromous fish, local priorities, the Yakima subbasins relatively advanced level of wildlife mitigation for construction losses -- the staff recommendation is to support funding for the proposals that focus on anadromous fish benefits -- 25002, 25024, 25025, 25078, 199603501, and 199705100. The amounts of funding for each of those proposals have been discussed identified in the issues discussed previously.

Budget effect on base program (Projects 25002, 25020, 25024, 25025, 25032, 25078, 199206200, 199603501, and 199705100):

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website