FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200103800
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 |
|---|---|
| City of Scapoose Financial Data Sheet | Narrative Attachment |
| 23045 Narrative | Narrative |
| Lower Columbia: Columbia Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Lower Columbia: Columbia Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Gourley Creek Dam Fish Ladder |
| Proposal ID | 200103800 |
| Organization | City of Scappoose, Oregon (Scappoose, OR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jerry Gillham |
| Mailing address | P. O. Box "P" Scappoose, Oregon 97056 |
| Phone / email | 5035437146 / jerrygillham@ci.scappoose.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jerry Gillham/Scappoose City Council |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / |
| Short description | Project will open up about 4 miles of high quality habitat for ESA listed salmonid above an existing fish passage barrier. Gourlay Creek, is identified as a focal watershed and a high priority for protection and restoration in the SBW assessment. |
| Target species | There are five ESA listed or ESA candidate salmonid species in Scappoose Bay Watershed (SBW) - Lower Columbia River chinook, Columbia River chum, Lower Columbia River coho, Lower Columbia River steelhead, and Columbia River coastal cutthroat. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.7438 | -122.9583 | Gourlay Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 183 | NMFS | Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2002 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $11,350 | $11,747 | $12,158 | $11,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.5 | $66,000 |
| Fringe | Ins, PERS, SS, WC | $11,220 |
| Supplies | com, vehicle, misc | $4,500 |
| Travel | $1,830 | |
| Indirect | $9,000 | |
| Capital | Monitoring System Guages | $25,000 |
| Subcontractor | DEA | $20,000 |
| Other | Equipment Rental | $16,000 |
| $153,550 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $153,550 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $153,550 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| SBW Council | monitoring, survey, restoration work | $10,000 | in-kind |
| ODFW | monitoring, survey, restoration work | $6,000 | in-kind |
| City of Scappoose | survey, assessment, pre-engineering design | $20,000 | cash |
| City of Scappoose | survey, monitoring, assessment, engineering design, permitting, project administration, erosion control, maintenance | $97,220 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This is an excellent proposal to provide passage for ESA species at Gourley Creek Dam in the Scappoose Watershed. It meets the Council's basic criteria. The time critical element appears to be the current public support, which could wane. The proposal provides direct on-the-ground benefits to ESA listed individuals in the Watershed. Listed species are found in Gourley Creek below the Dam and should expand into the additional habitat without further expense. The proposal includes excellent local support, is championed by the Watershed Council. Long-term O&M and M&E are to funded by the City of Scappoose Water Fund. The project appears to be very economic for the benefits to be gained. The ISRP had some minor concerns. One concern that should be addressed during Council review is whether three culverts mentioned in the supporting documentation will have to be corrected before the habitat above the dam can be effectively used. Also, they should consider potential impacts on native resident stocks if any are present above the dam. There was confusion about which tasks have already been accomplished, although the groundwork seems complete for actual action.Comment:
This proposal has not been coordinated with the co-managers. This project raises in-lieu concerns as well as funding activities beyond the screening implementation.Comment:
23024 - Hancock springs passage and habitat restoration, 23033 - Big Creek passage and screening, and 23045 - Gourlay Creek fish passage and habitat. All three projects involve removal of a barrier to passage plus upstream improvements (habitat restoration in two cases and the screening of irrigation ditches in the second.) All projects could provide useful information about the benefits of access to additional habitat (i.e.., whether survival rates improve as a result of this access), and about colonization patterns. 23040 (below) could also contribute to this effort.Comment:
Comment:
This project would open up about four miles of high quality habitat for ESA-listed salmonids above an existing artificial fish barrier. Its primary value would be serving as a tier-three M&E project under Action Item 183, given that it would immediately create access to previous blocked productive spawning and rearing habitat.Comment: