F E D E R A L A G E N C Y

B U D G E T SF isc a l Ye a r 2 0 0 3Fiscal Year 2004

April 10, 2003

   FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Enacted Budget BudgetCOLUMBIA RIVER BASIN:Army Corps of Engineers 98.00 113.5 125.1Bureau of Land Management 10.8 10.8 10.8Bureau of Reclamation 11.0 15.0 19.0United States Fish and Wildlife Service 10.0 11.7 10.3Natural Resources Conservation Service 27.9 27.9 27.9Bureau of Indian Affairs 0.4 0.4 0.4United States Geological Survey 0.4 0.5  0.5 N.O.A.A. Fisheries 26.0 36.6 41.1United States Forest Service 56.5 50.6 48.9Environmental Protection Agency 18.3 18.3 18.3 TOTAL (Discretionary Appropriations) 259.3 285.3 302.3 Bonneville Power Admin. Direct Fish Costs 253.3 289.7 286.6  TOTAL (Discretionary & Indefinite) 512.6 575.0 588.9 OTHER PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON:Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 110.0 90.0 90.0NOAA Pacific Salmon Treaty 45.0 40.0 0

TOTAL (Other Pacific Coastal Activities) 155.0 130.0 90  GRAND TOTAL (Columbia & Other Pacific Salmon) 667.6 705.0 678.9

FEDERAL AGENCYFISCAL YEAR 2002-2004 FUNDINGCOLUMBIA RIVER BASINWIDE SALMON($ in millions)

  

FY2002 FY2003 FY 2004 Actual Enacted Budget Construction, General Columbia R. Fish Mitigation Proj. 73.80 85.00 95.00 Chief Joseph Dam Gas Abatement 0.00 0.50 0.90 Lower Col. R. Ecosystem Restor. 0.00 2.00 2.00 Lower Snake R. F&WL Comp. Plan 0.00 4.00 2.00 Willamette Temperature Control 11.86 8.00 10.00General Investigations Willamette Floodplain Restoration 0.75 0.15 0.21 Lower Col. R. Ecosystem Restor. 0.13 0.30 0.25 Walla Walla Watershed 0.18 0.65 0.44Operation and Maintenance 39.51 45.33 47.60 Bonneville direct share (28.23) (32.41) (33.30)  Congressional Funding 98.00 113.52  125.10 Total Program 126.23 145.93 158.40

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSFISCAL YEAR 2002-2004 FUNDINGCOLUMBIA RIVER BASIN SALMON($ in millions)

   

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004Enacted Enacted Budget

 Columbia /Snake Salmon Recovery

Hydropower 5.5 6.5 6.4Tributary Habitat 3.5 6.6 10.5

R, M and E 0.9General 2.0 1.9 1.2

  TOTAL 11.0 15.0 19.0 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATIONFISCAL YEAR 2002-2004 FUNDING($ in millions)

   

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004Enacted Enacted Budget 

HydropowerMonitor & Evaluate Bull Trout Proj. 0.00 0.119 0.119

HabitatInstream Flow 0.375 0.949 0.949Avian Predation 0.300 0.298 0.298

ESA Consultation 0.797 1.700 1.700 Col. R. Estuary Restoration 0.00 0.179 0.179 Fish Passage 0.050 0.050 0.050

Subbasin Planning 1.060 1.053 1.053Bull Trout Passage 0.495 1.143 1.143Habitat Restoration 0.400 0.397 0.397 Total Habitat 3.477 5.769 5.769  

HatcheriesHatchery Operations and Maintenance 1.809 2.394 3.017Hatchery Monitor and Evaluation 0.580 1.054 1.054Fish Health 0.00 0.119 0.119 Total Hatcheries 2.389 3.567 4.190

 Harvest

Limit Harvest Impacts 0.160 0.228 0.228

ConstructionFish Screens 4.00 2.00 0.00

 TOTAL 10.026 11.683 10.306

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2004COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN INITIATIVE RESOURCE($ in millions)

   

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Enacted Enacted Budget

Columbia River Hatcheries Operations and Maintenance 11.5 11.5 11.5 Screens (Construction) 3.4 3.4 3.4 Hatchery Reform 1.7 1.7 1.7ESA Recovery Plan 7.2 7.2 7.2Resource Information Base 2.2 2.2 2.2Columbia River BiOp Research, Monitoring and Eval. -- 0.0 11.6 Subbasin & Hatchery planning and Implementation -- 0.0 3.5Mass Marking Trailers -- 1.6 --

Subtotal 26.0 27.6 41.1

Other Pacific Coastal Salmon Activities

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 110.0 90.0 90.0 Pacific Salmon Treaty 45.0 40.0 0.0 Subtotal  155.0 130.0 90.0 

NOAA FISHERIESCOLUMBIA RIVER SALMON FUNDINGFISCAL YEAR 2002-2004 FUNDING($ in millions)

   

FY 2002 FY 2003 Enacted Enacted  

Expenses O&M – Lower Snake Comp. 15.4 16.2 O&M – Corps and Bureau 35.9 37.0 NWPPC 4.3 4.3 Treasury Repayment 84.1 90.1 Direct Program 150.0 139.0    Total Expenses 289.7 286.6

 

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATIONFISH AND WILDLIFE FUNDINGFISCAL YEAR 2002-2004($ in millions)

Future Council considerations for federal appropriations for fish and wildlife implementation

April 10, 2003

Anticipate subbasin plans

• Subbasin plans will form an improved documentation of regional needs.

• Local constituencies will use them to seek funding from a variety of sources.

• The Council can help organize a coherent regional implementation strategy based on subbasin plans.

What we should be working on today?

• Help define the implementation “tool box” for subbasin plans.

• Specifically, the subbasin plans will include strategies that define project needs.

• Early identification of funding sources is key to implementing subbasin. plans.

“Tools” in the “toolbox”

• If a subbasin plan calls for :– Reducing sedimentation – CREP.– Screening irrigation diversions – FWS

screening, BOR, Mitchell Act sources.– Improving water quantity in tributaries –

NFWF water brokerage.– Hatchery upgrades – Corps, Mitchell Act

funding sources.

How we make progress

• Define the various funding sources.

• Determine flexibility for priorities – Forest Service may have less than Reclamation or Corps.

• Determine needed improvements in authorities or decision processes.

• Facilitate a regional process.