FY 2000 proposal 20107
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 |
|---|---|
| 20107 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20107 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Reconnect the Westport Slough to the Clatskanie River |
| Proposal ID | 20107 |
| Organization | Lower Columbia River Watershed Council (LCRWC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Margaret C. Magruder |
| Mailing address | 12589 Hwy. 30 Clatskanie, OR 97016 |
| Phone / email | 5037289015 / magruder@transport.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| Short description | Improve and enhance anadromous and resident fish habitat by reconnecting the Westport Slough to the Clatskanie River. A 12 foot culvert placed in the dam blocking the head of the Westport Slough will reestablish a crucial link for fish migration. |
| Target species | Coho, chinook, steelhead, chum, resident fish. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $0 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Construction | $12,850 | |
| Other | Monitoring fish and water quality | $17,000 |
| $29,850 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $29,850 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $29,850 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | Plans and specs/EA | $91,000 | unknown |
| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | Construction Management | $15,000 | unknown |
| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | Construction | $83,150 | unknown |
| Washington Coastal Protection Steering Fund | Permits, construction, maintenance and monitoring | $45,000 | unknown |
| Lower Columbia River Estuary Program | Revegetation and monitoring | $10,000 | unknown |
| Columbia County Parks Department | Construction | $17,000 | unknown |
| BPA | Construction and Monitoring | $29,850 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None expected.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fund with high priority.
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund with high priority.Comments: This is a modest proposal with potentially big benefits, and with very impressive cost-sharing. The cost to BPA is relatively small. The proposal addresses reconnection of the Westport slough to the Clatskanie River in the Lower Columbia River. Estuarine habitats are critical juvenile staging and rearing habitats for young salmon and steelhead as they make the transition from freshwater to saltwater. Estuarine habitats and their quality are thought to be one of the limiting factors in the basin for juvenile fish mortality. The proposed work here offers an opportunity to test juvenile and adult salmon use of a reconnected slough.
The proposal does not describe in adequate detail, however, potential adverse side effects of the proposed action, limiting factors in the tributaries, and a summary of the Corps of Engineers engineering and environmental assessment efforts. This project should require a favorable environmental assessment and engineering plan before implementation.
Specific questions and comments that should also be addressed include: Habitat restoration criteria are discussed only in general terms. The proposal would benefit from inclusion of a map. Is it assured that naturally occurring fish populations from the Clatskanie would populate the Westport Slough? If so, over what time period? Would supplemental plantings be required? Would the release of built-up toxins and sediments from the slough affect water quality or aquatic biota in the river, and if so, with what result?
Are there other factors (other than the plugged slough) that lead the Clatskanie River to be on the 303d list? Do those factors limit the benefits of the proposed reconnection? Similarly, are the 24 miles of salmonid habitat in tributaries to the slough limited only by fish passage problems, or are there other water quality concerns? What is the basis for the statement (Page 9) that expected results will be improved water circulation and flow? Have flows through the culvert/slough been estimated? Will fish movement through the culvert be possible? Has sediment transport modeling been done? Will flow through the slough be sufficient to mobilize sediments?
Comment:
Comment:
While proposal will increase rearing habitat, that is not likely to be limiting in that area. Many other sloughs near by. Habitat mainly for zero-aged or local coho. Would be better to take out blockage entirely, except would have to build a bridge. Proposal is not very clear. #1-Good cost share indicates support. #2-unclear in proposal. #3-Oregon Plan. #6-ongoing monitoring. #7-nebulous. #12-No info. #13-No info.Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal lacks details. What is the current condition of the slough and tributaries? Will they support fish if reconnected?Comment:
Rank Comments: This is an important project to improve the habitat in the Westport Slough, potential improving rearing habitat not only for fish from the Clatskanie River but other juveniles migrating down the Columbia River. There was strong support for this project because of potentially big benefits to migrating fish.Comment:
This is an important project to improve the habitat in the Westport Slough, potential improving rearing habitat not only for fish from the Clatskanie River but other juveniles migrating down the Columbia River. There was strong support for this project because of potentially big benefits to migrating fish.Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];