FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31019
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 |
|---|---|
| 31019 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31019 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 31019 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Program |
| Proposal ID | 31019 |
| Organization | Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, Operations Division (WA County, OR DLUT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Janet Oatney |
| Mailing address | 1400 SW Walnut St., MS 51 Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 |
| Phone / email | 5038467652 / janet_oatney@co.washington.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gregory S. Miller, P.E., Operations Manager |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Develop fish passage barrier assessment methodology for road / stream crossings, inventory and assess county owned facilities on a 5th field HUC basis, prioritize passage barriers to core habitat areas for threatened and endangered fish species. |
| Target species | Winter Steelhead, cutthroat trout, all resident and anadromous fish species |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.3377 | -122.65 | Tualatin River Watershed |
| 45.6889 | -123.8951 | Small Portion of Nehalam River Watershed |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 150 |
| Action 152 |
| Action 154 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| not applicable |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 20088 | Assess McKenzie Watershed Habitat & Prioritize Projects | supporting |
| 200001600 | Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Additions | complimentary |
| 199206800 | Willamette Basin Mitigation Program | complimentary |
| 198403600 | Willamette River Projects Wildlife and Habitat Loss Assessment | complimentary |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Finalize Barrier Assessment Methodology | a. Incorporate USFS "Measurements of Surrogates" techniques for fish passage assessment | .1 | $4,551 | |
| b. Develop inspection protocol | .05 | $2,275 | ||
| c. initiate recruitment process | .2 (concurent w/ objective 1.) | $0 | ||
| 2. Develop Prioritization Plan | a. Incorporate & modify Clackamas County's "Guide to Prioritizing Fish Passage Barriers" | .05 | $2,275 | |
| 3. Incorporate Existing Environmental data | a. Access urban water / habitat quality information from Clean Water Services | .1 | $4,551 | |
| b. Obtain electronic dataset of ODF&Ws limited fish passage assesment within Washington County. | .025 | $1,136 | ||
| c. Ensure spatial integration of data obtained by outside sources. | .1 | $4,550 | ||
| d. Utilize Multnomah County's existing GIS and IRIS (Common Public Works Database) links to ensure data compatiblity | .1 | $4,550 | ||
| 4. Obtain 5 year work program for Washington County Operations and Major Streets Improvements Programs | .01 | $0 | ||
| 5. Develop Comprehensive Plan for incorporating barrier assessments, structural condition, environmental quality, & gained habitat opportunity information into one data set that can be linked through the County's existing database | .2 | $4,551 | ||
| 6. NEPA | **Applicants Note: phone conversation with Nancy Weintraub, BPA, indicates that minimal NEPA review will be required; categorical exclusion will be the likely finding. Ms. Weintraub recommends a budgetary line item of $0.00.** | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| no planning and design out year objectives | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct Dairy - McKay 5th Field barrier assessment & inventory | a. Train Staff | .05 | $2,276 | |
| b. Conduct assessments | .5 | $33,467 | ||
| c. Incorporate data into database | ongoing | $0 | ||
| d. Develop ranked triage lists of road - stream crossings that block fish passage | .1 | $5,625 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct Gales Creek Assessment | 2004 | 2004 | $13,125 |
| 2. Conduct Upper Tualatin - Scoggins Assessment | 2004 | 2005 | $13,125 |
| 3. Conduct Middle Tualatin - Rock Creek Assessment | 2005 | 2005 | $13,125 |
| 4. Conduct Lower Tualatin Assessment | 2005 | 2006 | $13,125 |
| 5. Produce electronic and hard copy final assessment report | 2006 | 2006 | $8,325 |
| 6. Produce Washington County prioritization plan for removing barriers that block passage to fish species | 2006 | 2007 | $2,250 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $13,125 | $26,250 | $20,625 | $2,250 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporate new environmental data as it becomes available | ongoing | $750 | ||
| 2. Maintain data integrity | ongoing | $750 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Incorporate new environmental data as it becomes available | 2004 | 2007 | $2,250 |
| 2. Maintain data integrity | 2004 | 2007 | $2,250 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,500 | $1,500 | $750 | $750 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Program Evaluation | .025 | $1,125 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Yearly Program Evaluation | 2004 | 2007 | $4,500 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,500 | $1,500 | $750 | $750 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $52,819 | |
| Fringe | $16,715 | |
| Supplies | $2,073 | |
| Travel | $0 | |
| Indirect | $0 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | printing / distribution | $825 |
| $72,431 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $72,431 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $72,432 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multnomah County | Database & GIS technical assistance | $2,500 | in-kind |
| Clackamas County | Prioritization Software (in house design) | $5,000 | in-kind |
| Washington County | Staff, equipment, benefits, office, supplies | $28,665 | in-kind |
| US Forest Service | Assessment Methodology | $5,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal addresses the need for an inventory of fish passage barriers in the Tualatin River system, which according to the proposal is dominated by productive habitat, has no hatchery releases, and therefore offers the potential for wild stock benefits from reestablishing habitat connectivity. The proposal cites the first step to reconnecting habitat as the identification of road-stream crossings that act as passage barriers. Proposers argue that because of the Tualatin's location in an area of rapid population growth, active watershed management will be necessary to retain habitat quality. They see the road-stream crossing barrier analysis as critical to filling gaps in knowledge of how to prioritize restoration actions.The proposal shows good connection Willamette Basin plans and projects. It is a reasonable project that could open new habitat to colonization by salmonids. The plan for assessing and prioritizing fish passage barriers makes efficient use of time and information.
However, the concept of habitat quality above barriers, which is one of the assessment criteria, needs to be more thoroughly discussed. Applicants should meet with ODFW staff to determine the habitat and fish data that are available and enlist ODFW assistance in assessing habitat quality during the project. An additional consideration is whether migratory fish historically could access the area above the culvert. Indigenous, genetically unique stocks that have been isolated for many years could exist above the barriers. Additional criteria for assessing culvert removal should be whether migratory fishes likely had access to the habitat above the culvert historically and whether current stocks above the barrier have unique genetic and ecological qualities that should be preserved.
The proposal describes a culvert assessment protocol that uses surrogates to measure and assess barriers. This approach appears to make sense, and would also appear to be well developed. Based on these methods an inspection protocol handbook would be developed for use in the field. A priority plan would be developed using the inventory of barriers weighted by factors that represent potential benefits to passage from barrier removal. The proposers should review culvert assessment protocols developed in Washington Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual (WDFW 2000) and other projects: (e.g. project 27022 in the Grand Ronde Subbasin) to see if methods already developed are applicable to the Tualatin. Consequently, the response should justify why development of a new handbook is necessary.
This project appears to provide needed and valuable preparation work for the restoration of fish passage in the Tualatin River system. Overall, it is well justified, systematic, and cost effective.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable. This proposal addresses the need for an inventory of fish passage barriers in the Tualatin River system, which according to the proposal is dominated by productive habitat, has no hatchery releases, and therefore offers the potential for wild stock benefits from reestablishing habitat connectivity. The proposal cites the first step to reconnecting habitat as the identification of road-stream crossings that act as passage barriers. Proposers argue that because of the Tualatin's location in an area of rapid population growth, active watershed management will be necessary to retain habitat quality. They see the road-stream crossing barrier analysis as critical to filling gaps in knowledge of how to prioritize restoration actions.The proposal shows good connection Willamette Basin plans and projects. It is a reasonable project that could open new habitat to colonization by salmonids. The plan for assessing and prioritizing fish passage barriers makes efficient use of time and information.
The response is complete and indicates not only good response to review comments but also shows thorough followup and investigation of project improvement possibilities and potential collaborations. The proposers are in touch with ODFW about assessing habitat, and are conscious of restrictions on removing barriers that maintain historical isolation of stocks. The Washington culvert protocols, according to the response, are too difficult for technicians to use; the proposers plan to get training and incorporate a USFS protocol in their manual. The response was adequate.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit. Assessment and survey of passage impediments and roads. Potential for increased habitat access
Comments
Reasonable assessment approach. Needs clear links back existing data and efforts to identify culverts for fixing. County can prioritize now. How will this project be so much better? Need to link to CWS Healthy Streams project.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Recommend deferring consideration of new anadromous fish mitigation proposals in the Willamette subbasin until issuance of the NMFS/USFWS BiOp for the Willamette Basin federal hydroprojects.Comment: