FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25060
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 25060 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25060 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25060 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Columbia Lower Middle Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Columbia Lower Middle Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Letter from R. Sando (CBFWA) to F. Cassidy (NPCC) RE: Funding request for project proposal 25060 | CBFWA Review Recommendations |
| Letter from F. Olney (USFWS) to B. Allee (CBFWA) RE: Out-year budget for the Burbank Sloughs Project (#25060) | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Burbank Sloughs and Mainstem Columbia River Shoreline/Side Channel/Wetland Habitat Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 25060 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Mid-Columbia River Refuges Complex (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dave Linehan |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 2527 - Mid-Columbia River Refuges Pasco, WA 99301 |
| Phone / email | 5095458588 / David_Linehan@FWS.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gary Hagedorn |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | Remove berms, reconnect side channels & wetlands to river & establish flow, & enhance shallow-water areas to provide rearing, resting & predator avoidance habitat adjacent to the main channel Columbia River in the Burbank Sloughs Area, Pasco, Washington. |
| Target species | Hanford Reach Fall Chinook (Not ESA) Upper Columbia Spring-run Chinook (E) Upper Columbia steelhead (E) Mid-Columbia steelhead (T) Snake River Spring/Summer-run chinook(T) Snake River Fall-run Chinook(T) Snake River Sockeye (E) Snake River Steelhead(T) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| T8N, R31E, Sections 16, 20, &21 in Walla Walla County, WA | ||
| 46.18 | -118.94 | Burbank Slough, T8N, R31E, S16 |
| 46.16 | -118.94 | Burbank Slough, T8N, R31E, S21 |
| 46.16 | -118.96 | Burbank Slough, T8N, R31E, S20 |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 155 |
| Action 38 |
| Action 149 |
| Action 190 |
| Action 185 |
| Action 105 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | USFWS/McNary Refuge is partner/cooperator in BOR Project -Burbank Pumps #2&3- to provide juvenile fish egress and screening. Refuge will be removing two berms and two water control structures on Refuge lands after screen installation. See RP# 38 |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 105 | RPA 105- The Action Agencies shall develop a pilot study to assess the feasibility of enhancing the function of ecological communities to reduce predation losses and increase survival in reservoirs and the estuary. | Project serves as pilot study to determine efficacy of several habitat improvement actions (sidechannel opening, berm breaching for access to shallow-water habitat, enhancing shoreline wetlands) which restore or mimic natural river ecosystem function. |
| 155 | RPA 155- Initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches | Project will provide data and methodology for improving mainstem reaches. |
| 38 | RPA 38 - BOR shall connect the Burbank No. 3 intake canal to Burbank Slough to provide juvenile fish egress. | Project was first suggested by biologists during field review of the BOR project. Will provide greater access/improved egress throughout Burbank Slough Complex of wetlands, side channels and shoreline habitat besides just the Burbank 3 intake canal. |
| 149 | RPA 149 - The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitats in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. | Study will provide data and methodology for improving mainstem habitat and overall ecosystem function in mainstem and other subbasins. |
| 190 | RPA 190 - The Action Agencies shall continue to fund studies that monitor survival, growth, and other early life history attributes of Snake River wild juvenile fall chinook | Monitoring portion of project will provide valuable data on survival and growth rates of Snake River wild juvenile fall chinook if they are determined to be using this wetland/shoreline complex. |
| 185 | RPA 185 - The Action Agencies shall continue to fund and expand fish marking and recapturing programs aimed at defining juvenile migrant survival for both transported migrants and . . . | Project monitoring phase will provide valuable data on survival and growth rates of juvenile salmon using this wetland/shoreline complex. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Provide engineering and project design | a. Engineer and design habitat improvements and construction | a. 1 | $20,000 | Yes |
| 1. " " | b. Design monitoring program | b. 1 | $6,000 | |
| 2. NEPA/ESA review and approvals | a. Write documents (EA, JARPA, etc.), provide for review and approvals | a. 1 | $18,000 | |
| 3. Archeological & cultural review and clearance | a. Obtain review, surveys and approvals for cultural and archeological clearance | a. 1 | $14,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Open and reconnect side channels to river and enhance fish rearing, resting and predator cover habitat in channels | a. Breach roads/berms on 2 side channels | 1 | $18,000 | |
| 1. " " | b. Install 3 large wide-arch culverts | 1 | $39,000 | |
| 1. " " | c. Excavate swales to reconnect channels to river, establish flow, improve vegetative cover in channel for fish survival and predator avoidance | 1 | $174,000 | |
| 2. Breach dikes/berms & provide fish access from the river to isolated wetlands and shoreline; enhance fish rearing, resting and predator cover habitat | a. Breach 7 dikes/berms, remove fill | 1 | $47,000 | |
| 2. " " | b. Excavate and open sloughs, improve shallow-water areas, provide interconnects into wetlands and near-shore vegetation, create islands & nearshore/predator avoidance habitat | 3 | $152,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2. Breach berms & provide access to isolated wetlands and shoreline areas in the Burbank Sloughs Complex and enhance fish rearing, resting and predator avoidance habitat in wetlands | 2003 | 2004 | $160,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $90,000 | $70,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor preproject juvenile fish use of unconnected side channels and isolated wetland/shoreline habitats, measure growth rates, and survival rates | a. Capture, mark and determine species distribution/abundance, growth and survival rates of juvenile salmon using unconnected side channel and unimproved shoreline/wetland habitats prior to project | 1 | $38,000 | Yes |
| 2. Monitor juvenile fish use of connected side channels and opened wetland/shoreline habitats after project construction and measure use, growth rates, and survival of juvenile salmonids. | a. Capture, mark and determine species distribution/abundance, growth rates and survival of juvenile salmonids using reconnected side channels and opened/reconnected shoreline and wetland habitats after project completion | 3 | $0 | |
| 3. Monitor environmental and ecological indices to assess ecosystem-level changes resulting from restoration | a. Monitor water quality, temperature and other environmental factors; monitor changes in distrubution and abundance of invertebrates, fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians | 3 | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor juvenile fish use, distribution, abundance of connected side channels and opened/reconnected wetland/shoreline habitats after project construction and measure use, growth rates, and survival of juvenile salmonids. | 2003 | 2005 | $40,000 |
| 2.Monitor environmental and ecological indices to assess ecosystem-level changed resulting from restoration | 2003 | 2005 | $60,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|
| $35,000 | $35,000 | $30,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2-Temporary fishery technicians; Temporary biologist/project oversight; Temporary equipment operator | $175,000 |
| Fringe | Benefits for 3 temporary positions | $45,000 |
| Supplies | Materials for construction phase, monitoring supplies/equipment; revegetation & restoration | $98,000 |
| Travel | Vehicle use, travel and gasoline | $5,900 |
| Indirect | Administrative overhead, contingencies | $28,000 |
| Capital | 3 large arch pipe/culverts | $29,000 |
| NEPA | Report writing and meetings, admin support | $9,100 |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | Engineering and design | $18,000 |
| Other | Heavy equipment rental for construction (excavator, dozer);vehicle rental for temporary technicians | $138,000 |
| $546,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $546,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $546,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | Donated heavy equipment and operators, project management; wildife biologists; | $86,000 | in-kind |
| Ducks Unlimited | Donated labor (fishery biologist) for planning & construction | $30,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This would serve as a pilot project to restore wintering/rearing habitat for chinook and secondarily steelhead in seven sloughs. The proposal was clearly written with helpful photos. A map is needed.
This effort will be successful for anadromous fish rearing if such habitat is currently in short supply and if the new habitat does not increase predation, especially piscine. That issue was mentioned in both proposal and presentation but reasons for expecting low predation rates were not elaborated upon. That issue should be clarified in the response.
The priority of this area needs to be justified in the response. Why was this particular 2000 acres selected? Is it typical of shoreline development in the area or is it a known area of emigrant utilization? Does the area offer a better than average chance of "success"?
The response should better describe the monitoring and evaluation.
Comment:
The CBFWA reviewers are very concerned about the predator presence in this area. The project sponsor did not convince the reviewers that enough groundwork had been completed to determine that the response proposed from this project would be accomplished. The AFC sees a high value (High Priority) in performing the pre-implementation feasibility study of this project with flow, temperature, and predator/prey analysis. CBFWA would like to see the results of the feasibility study prior to funding the implementation of reconnecting the slough.Comment:
Fundable. This would serve as a pilot project to restore wintering/rearing habitat for chinook and secondarily steelhead in seven sloughs. The proposal was clearly written with helpful photos and the response showed a great deal of effort and fine-tuning that reviewers feel should lead to a stronger project. This effort will be successful for anadromous fish rearing if such habitat is currently in short supply and if the new habitat does not increase predation (especially piscine). That issue was mentioned in both proposal and presentation and reasons for expecting low predation rates were discussed in the response. Although somewhat on the fence, the ISRP was persuaded by the response on predation. CBFWA raises this issue as well and is less convinced. This issue deserves more attention, and the implementation option described in CBFWA's comments warrants consideration.The response addressed other reviewer concerns. A strong M&E protocol was described, and a well-qualified scientist was appropriately added to the project. However, monitoring appears to be too broad - e.g. invertebrates - without all elements justified as to how they will of value in assessment of project success or failure.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBy restoring slough/off-channel habitat, breach road, berms, & replacing culverts, this project could serve as a pilot project to restore wintering/rearing habitat for chinook, & secondarily steelhead, in seven sloughs.
Comments
Proposal allies itself with a number of RPA actions and is certainly consistent with the BiOp objectives, however the intended action is a collection of restoration actions which are not developed to implement specific RPAs. The effort will be of most benefit if anadromous fish rearing habitat is currently in short supply, and if the new habitat does not increase predation (especially piscine). Is this habitat limiting to these ESUs? At a minimum, would affect UCR SCH, UCR SH, MCR SH, SR SH.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
This is a substantial proposal, restoring nearly 2,000 acres of potential salmonid rearing habitat. It corrects previous wildlife mitigation actions of McNary Dam. If BPA funds the project, it should get appropriate credit on its repayment to the Treasury. It is critical that the enhancement of this shallow water habitat take into account the effects of pool fluctuations and the presence of invasive, predatory species. The proposal should also consider the effects of opening up this habitat on the lifecycle of predatory fish species to ensure it doesn’t overly enhance their numbers and, therefore, the predatory effect on juvenile salmonids. This project may require expansion of the northern pikeminnow control project.Comment:
Comment:
Comment: