DOC

In Addition - Disailities Network of New York City

By Alex Holmes,2014-06-09 15:25
6 views 0
In Addition - Disailities Network of New York Cityof,In,in,New,York,City,city,new

Draft FY 2002-2004 Columbia

    Plateau Province Work Plan

    Prepared for the

    Northwest Power Planning Council

    by the

    Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

    August 3, 2001

     1

    Draft FY 2002-2004 Columbia Plateau

    Province Work Plan

    Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3

    Geographic Description ................................................................................................................. 4

    Project Review Process ................................................................................................................. 7

    Crab Creek Subbasin Summary .................................(see tabbed sections in this document) Mainstem Columbia River Subbasin Summary ..........(see tabbed sections in this document) Palouse River Subbasin Summary .............................(see tabbed sections in this document) Rock Creek Subbasin Summary ................................(see tabbed sections in this document) Yakima River Subbasin Summary .............................(see tabbed sections in this document) Deschutes River Subbasin Summary .........................(see tabbed sections in this document) John Day Subbasin Summary ....................................(see tabbed sections in this document) Mainstem Lower Snake River Subbasin Summary ....(see tabbed sections in this document) Tucannon River Subbasin Summary ..........................(see tabbed sections in this document) Umatilla River Subbasin Summary ............................(see tabbed sections in this document) Walla Walla River Subbasin Summary ......................(see tabbed sections in this document) Appendix A. Project Review Comments ............................................... (separate document) Appendix B. Project Budget Totals 2002 2004 .................................. (separate document)

    Appendix C. Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans ........................ (separate document)

     2

     Introduction

    The ―rolling‖ provincial review process was developed by the Northwest Power Planning

    Council (NWPPC) in February 2000 in response to recommendations by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). Under this new province based process each individual project proposal within a province will be reviewed for technical merit and management relevance every three years. Under the previous process all project proposals for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funding under the Fish and Wildlife Program were reviewed annually. The purpose of the NWPPC’s new multi-year process is to reduce the burden

    of reviewing large numbers of proposals, most of which had been reviewed just one year before, and to provide for a more thorough review of the project proposals in the context of a subbasin summary. Additionally, the process is intended to provide the opportunity for site visits by reviewers, project presentations with a question and answer period, and provide reviewers with more detailed background and planning documents which will reduce the reviewer’s reliance strictly on the proposal form.

    The subbasin summaries developed under this process are intended to be interim and will be replaced by subbasin plans developed to meet requirements of the recently amended Fish and Wildlife Program. The Columbia Plateau Province was the fourth province to be reviewed under this new process. The results of this review are summarized here.

    This document was developed collaboratively by the NWPPC staff, ISRP, fish and wildlife managers, other stakeholders, and CBFWA staff, culminating in project and budget recommendations for FY 2002-2004. The subbasin summaries are provided only as context for the project recommendations.

    The CBFWA process for providing these recommendations utilized the ISRP preliminary findings and integrated manager evaluations of the technical and management merits of the project proposals relative to anadromous fish, resident fish and wildlife management needs, and the goals and objectives identified in the subbasin summaries. A total of 166 project proposals were submitted and reviewed with 9 proposals (i.e., 25037, 25041, 25044, 25061, 25076, 25087, 25098, 25099, and 25100) receiving a ―Do Not Fund‖ recommendation. The recommended projects address needs identified in the subbasin summaries and include 80 new and 61 ongoing projects totaling $55 million. In addition, 16 proposals (11 new and 5 ongoing) totaling $26 million were identified by the CBFWA as proposals that could potentially be implemented as ―High Priority‖ projects pending crediting resolution with BPA and NWPPC. The CBFWA will formally request a policy level meeting to resolve this issue.

    Besides crediting resolution, there is concern over inconsistency in BPA’s use of in-lieu funding as the basis for denying funding of some proposals and an urgent need for the BPA to provide the region with a working definition of in-lieu. The CBFWA will be forwarding, to the BPA and NWPPC under separate cover, a request for a policy level meeting to address the crediting and in-lieu issues.

    This draft work plan includes the subbasin summaries, which describe the physical and biological characteristics of each subbasin within the Columbia Plateau Province. The summaries also identify past accomplishments, limiting factors, management objectives and strategies, current needs and recommended budgets for project implementation.

     3

    Geographic Description

    For this review, the Columbia Plateau Province (Figure 1), which is located in central/eastern Washington and Oregon, was divided into North (Yakima, Palouse, and Mainstem Columbia rivers, and Rock and Crab creeks) and South (Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Lower Mainstem Snake rivers) sections.

     4

Figure 1. Columbia Plateau Province.

5

    Project Review Process

    Subbasin Summaries

    The Columbia Plateau Province Review was initiated at a November 28-29, 2000, meeting in Pendleton, Oregon. An invitation was sent to an extensive distribution list to encourage all interested parties (i.e. land and water managers, representatives of watershed councils, etc.) to attend and provide input. The purpose of this first meeting was to provide all interested parties with the opportunity to identify sources of information necessary for the development of subbasin summaries for this province (i.e. monitoring data, habitat restoration results, existing assessments, etc.). The intent was to ensure BPA expenditures for fish and wildlife projects compliment and enhance existing efforts and ensure that priority needs are addressed. Subsequent meetings were held to review draft summaries and identify goals and objectives.

    Previously, ecosystem summaries for each subbasin were developed as a means of providing context for project proposals. Under the new process, a more formal structure with subbasin teams was formed to develop the more comprehensive subbasin summaries of the newly identified provinces. Other local interested parties also provided input to and participated on the subbasin teams (i.e. other land and water managers, representatives from watershed councils, etc.).

    Subbasin summaries for the Columbia Plateau Province were completed in March 2001. The BPA issued the solicitation for project proposals for the Columbia Plateau Province on March 2, 2001, with project proposals due April 13, 2001. The project sponsors were asked to show a direct tie between their projects and the needs identified in the subbasin summaries.

    Review by the ISRP

    The ISRP reviewed 166 project proposals for the Columbia Plateau Province. At least three ISRP/Peer Review Group members reviewed each proposal. To ensure a consistent and fair evaluation, standard formats and criteria were applied to all proposals to generate comments and scores prior to the proposal review workshop. These scores and comments were not made available to the project sponsors at the workshop, but were used by the ISRP to develop questions for the site visits and workshop presentations. The workshops consisted of site visits and project presentations.

    Site Visits ( May 7-8, 2001 (South ) and May 14-15, 2001 (North))

    The ISRP, subbasin teams, fish and wildlife managers, the CBFWA province review team and other stakeholders toured the province to gain a better understanding of the existing ecological conditions and limiting factors as well as view some ongoing projects in each subbasin. During the tour, managers provided oral presentations for areas/projects within the province that the group was unable to visit.

    Project Presentation (May 8-10, 2001 (South) and May 16-18, 2001 (North))

    Prior to the presentation of individual project proposals, subbasin team leaders provided a general overview for their respective summaries. Following each subbasin summary

     7

    presentation, project proposals relative to that subbasin were presented to the ISRP, CBFWA province review team, fish and wildlife managers, NWPPC staff, CBFWA staff and other stakeholders. All project sponsors were provided 15 minutes to present their proposal and answer questions. During this review, the CBFWA province review team applied Subbasin Project Review Criteria (Table 1) to each project. Every effort was made to be consistent among all project proposals reviewed.

Table 1. The CBFWA subbasin project review criteria.

    Technical Criteria

    1. Does the proposal demonstrate that the project uses appropriate scientifically Y or N

    valid strategies or techniques and sound principles (best available science)?

    2. Are the objectives clearly defined with measurable outcomes and tasks that Y or N

    contribute toward accomplishment of the objectives?

    3. Are the resources proposed (staff, equipment, materials) appropriate to Y or N

    achieve the objectives and time frame milestones?

    4. Does the proposal include monitoring and evaluation to determine whether Y or N

    objectives are being achieved (including performance measures/methods) at the

    project level?

    5. Will the proposed project significantly benefit the target species/ indicator Y or N

    populations?

    6. Does the proposal demonstrate that project benefits are likely to persist over Y or N

    the long term and will not be compromised by other activities in the basin?

    7. Does the proposal demonstrate that all reasonable precautions have been Y or N

    taken, to not adversely affect habitat/populations of wildlife, native resident and anadromous fish?

    8. Are there explicit plans for how the information, technology etc. from this Y or N

    project will be disseminated or used?

    Management Criteria

    1. Does the proposed project address fish and wildlife related objectives, Y or N

    strategies, needs and actions as identified in the subbasin summaries?

    2. Does the project address an urgent requirement or threat to population Y or N

    maintenance and/or habitat protection (i.e., threatened, endangered or sensitive species)?

    3. Does the project promote/maintain sustainable and /or ecosystem processes or Y or N

    maintain desirable community diversity?

    4. Is there cost share for the construction/implementation and/or monitoring and Y or N

    evaluation of the project?

    5. Will the project complement management actions on private, public and tribal Y or N

    lands and does the project have demonstrable support from affected agencies, tribes and public?

    6. Will the project provide data critical for in season, annual and/or longer term Y or N

    management decisions?

    7. Will this project provide or protect riparian or other habitat that may benefit Y or N

    both fish and wildlife?

    Preliminary ISRP Report

    On June 15, 2001, the ISRP released a Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Project Proposals for the Columbia Plateau Province (ISRP 2001-6 at NWPPC). This report

     8

    summarized the ISRP's preliminary review of each project proposal and identified areas of concern where they had requested a written response to questions. The due date for written responses to this report was June 29, 2001.

    CBFWA Province Review Group

    During July 9-11, 2001 (North), and July 16-18, 2001 (South), the CBFWA Province Review Group reviewed all project proposals within the province using criteria listed in Table 1 which resulted in a consensus Yes or No. Subbasin team members also participated in the review of the project proposals. The following elements were considered during the review:

    ; How well does the project relate to the criteria (Table 1)

    ; Validation of existing work- is the current funding level appropriate (Section 6 O&M

    and Section 7 M&E of existing projects)? Is it appropriate to continue

    implementation of existing work (Section 4 P&D and Section 5 C&I of existing

    projects)?

    ; Evaluation of proposed new work- does a new project proposal demonstrate a priority

    need over implementation strategies within existing projects (Sections 4 and 5 of

    existing projects)?

    Project proposals were grouped by subbasin during their review. The preliminary ISRP technical review of all proposals was utilized while discussing the technical merits of each project. Following the technical and management review, the project proposals were prioritized within each subbasin according to the fish and wildlife needs within that subbasin. The following definitions were used for the subbasin prioritization: ; Urgent - These projects or tasks within a project are of urgent need. They will either

    have a direct impact on survival or protection of a key species or will protect

    investments made in this subbasin. These projects should be able to demonstrate an

    immediate cost if not funded (loss of habitat, impact on a population, etc.). An

    example might also include ongoing O&M costs.

    ; High Priority - These projects or tasks within a project are high priority within the

    subbasin. The project addresses a specific need within the subbasin summaries. ; Recommended Actions - These are good projects that cannot demonstrate a

    significant loss by not funding this year. These projects should be funded, but under

    a limited budget could be delayed temporarily without significant loss. ; Do not fund - These projects are either technically inadequate or do not address a

    need within the subbasin summaries. These projects may be inappropriate for BPA

    funding.

    CBFWA Review and Approval of Project Recommendations and Subbasin

    Summaries

    The final step in the project proposal review process was the consensus approval of the project recommendations by CBFWA Members. The CBFWA Members Review and the recommendations in the subbasin summaries and province work plan demonstrate regional support by the fish and wildlife managers.

     9

    On July 27, 28, and 29, 2001, the province recommendations and subbasin summaries were discussed in the CBFWA Resident Fish, Wildlife, and Anadromous Fish committees, respectively. The committees made some modifications to the province recommendations based on technical or regional management concerns. It was decided to group the Urgent and High Priority projects for the final recommendation to NWPPC since all of these projects should be funded in FY 2002.

    Proposal Review Results

    A total of 166 project proposals were reviewed in the Columbia Gorge Province (66 ongoing projects and 100 new proposals, (Appendix A). Nine proposals were categorized as ―Do Not Fund.‖ Proposals that received a Do Not Fund recommendation are:

    ; Project Number 25044, Application of Biological Assessment Protocol to Evaluate

    Passage of Juvenile Salmonids Through Culverts in the Yakima Basin, is a proposal

    that appeared to lack coordination with WDFW and WDOT. The WDFW or WDOT

    would have to adopt any protocols that are developed through this project.

; Project Number 25037, Evaluation of the effects of American shad on upstream

    migration of anadromous fishes at Priest Rapids Dam, because the proposal did not

    provide adequate detail and the project sponsor did not to respond to the ISRP, it was

    not clear why the extensive behavior evaluation is necessary prior to implementing

    actions to prevent shad from entering the fish ladder at Priest Rapids Dam.

; Project Number 25041, Wildlife Escape Ramps, is a proposal in which the CBFWA

    strongly supports the proposed approach for saving wildlife from drowning in

    irrigation canals. However, because the tie to the development of the hydrosystem is

    difficult establish, the proposed work raises a serious in-lieu question that will have to

    be addressed. These ramps would be constructed in Bureau of Reclamation's canals

    for the Columbia Basin Project.

; Project Number 25061, John Day Fish Passage Barrier Inventory, proposed work

    that reviewers indicate is not warranted since barriers to fish passage have already

    been identified and that implementation is ongoing. In addition, there has been no

    coordination with the management agencies.

; Proposal Number 25076, Enhancing Riparian Corridors Sustainably With Integrated

    Agroforestry, is a proposal project that was conceptually accepted through SRFB.

    However, there was a concern about the associated costs and the eventual harvest of

    the trees. The watershed council in the area of this proposed work also expressed

    concern about the proposed costs. The costs associated with this proposal are high

    relative to the amount of habitat (40 acres) and the riparian buffers are narrower than

    NMFS's properly functioning conditions (50 feet). There is no guarantee that the

    riparian habitat and gained cfs will be preserved. In addition, there is no guarantee

    that pulp prices will remain high enough to maintain the program. As an experiment,

    the scale of this project should have been much smaller.

     10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com