FY 2000 proposal 20013

Additional documents

TitleType
20013 Narrative Narrative
20013 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore Unobstructed Fish Passage to Duncan Creek
Proposal ID20013
OrganizationSkamania Landing Owners Association (SLOA) (SLOA)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameAndrew Jansky
Mailing address111 S.W. 5th Ave. Suite 2500 Portland, OR 97204-3628
Phone / email5032273251 / andrew@kpff.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Columbia Lower
Short descriptionRestore unobstructed fish passage to Duncan Creek from the Columbia River through creation of an open concrete fish flume at the mouth of a dam co-managed by the Skamania Landing Owners Association and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Target speciesChum, Coho, Steelhead and Sea-run Cutthroat
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel In-Kind and Covered by SLOA $0
Fringe NA $0
Supplies Materials and construction costs for fishway, mitigation and portions of dam repairs. $190,000
Operating To be performed by SLOA/WDFW $0
Capital Land Owned by SLOA $0
NEPA Completed $0
Construction Covered by SLOA $0
Travel NA $0
Indirect Covered by SLOA $0
Other NA $0
$190,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$190,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$190,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
SLOA Dam repair; grant and project adminstration/preparation; Construction contingencies and services; permits; and preliminary engineering costs. $195,840 unknown
WDFW Fishway design; technical assistance; project oversight. $10,000 unknown
BPA Fish flume final design costs, materials and constuction. $190,000 unknown

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fund for one year as proposed.
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund for one year as proposed.

Comments: The proposal includes a commendable cost-sharing arrangement, and appears promising as a benefit to chum salmon, coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat in the lower Columbia River. The proposal excels in outlining the historical importance of Duncan Creek to chum salmon and other nearby efforts that would complement this project. The proposal presents an innovative approach focusing on natural restoration of salmonids. The study may be useful to the region as a test of the natural resiliency of depressed stocks when production constraints are removed. Reviewers caution that chum salmon should not be stocked, however, until Washington Department of Fish and Game evaluate chum salmon stocks and develop a plan for establishment of a wild chum salmon population.

The project needs a more clearly defined protocol for monitoring spawning activity and reporting of results (approved by WDFW). Authors should include some estimate of anticipated results. They should also discuss habitat criteria more explicitly (what other conditions are necessary in the Duncan Creek watershed to support anadromous fish?) and explain plans to evaluate results beyond the fact that spawning surveys are to be conducted annually.

Specific questions and comments that should also be addressed are: There is no evidence of a watershed assessment plan. From what source will the stock for chum salmon come? Is spawning habitat the only limiting factor for chum? And is the estuary adequate to support juvenile chum? The cost-sharing budget figure (Page 4) appears to be incorrect.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Do they need all that they are requesting?? Ought to be able to complete for $200,000. They have already received at least one grant. Some of the stated costs may be related to needed dam maintenance. Preferred alternative is to remove the dam on Duncan Cr. Homeowners built the dam, now they are asking for funds to correct the problem created. Concern with limited expertise for conducting M & E. #1-Demonstrated support, but proposal overstates its case on some points. Proposal would be better if coordinated more closely with WDFW. #2-WDFW work priorities only. #3- This document lists Chum and its needs. #6-Assuming WDFW will pick up O&M. #8-WDFW work priorities are not based on WSA. #8-Did not state relation to WDFW M&E. #9-Dam removal would foster "normative." #10-Drawdown for 6 months will promote "connectivity" for Chum. #12&13-Proposal is silent. #14-Status quo if not done.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

What is the condition of the habitat above the diversion structure? Is it currently good enough to support fish?
Recommendation:
Rank 17
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

Rank Comments: Although this project is primarily of site specific value, it would test low cost restoration approaches that could have systemwide significance. If successful, there would be significant benefits to chum salmon and other anadromous species using this Lower Columbia Basin creek.
Recommendation:
Rank 17
Date:
Oct 8, 1999

Comment:

Although this project is primarily of site specific value, it would test low cost restoration approaches that could have systemwide significance. If successful, there would be significant benefits to chum salmon and other anadromous species using this Lower Columbia Basin creek.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];