Return to Proposal Finder FY 2003 Columbia Estuary Proposal 200301500

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

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
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Blind Slough Restoration Project - Brownsmead, Oregon
BPA Project Proposal Number 200301500
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
Business acronym (if appropriate) CREST
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Allan Whiting, Wetlands Coordinator
Mailing Address 750 Commercial St., Room 205
City, State, Zip Astoria, Oregon 97103
Phone 5033250435
Fax 5033250459
E-mail awhiting@columbiaestuary.org
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Matthew Van Ess, CREST Executive Director
 
Review Cycle Columbia Estuary
Province Columbia Estuary
Subbasin Columbia Estuary
 
Short Description Restoration of tidal exchange between the Columbia River Estuary and Blind Slough in the community of Brownsmead, Oregon. BPA funds will be used to match U.S. Army Corps Section 1135 funding for 25% of the total project costs.
Target Species All 12 ESU's of Threatened and/or Endangered salmon in the Columbia Basin as well as Lower Columbia Coho, Sea-run Cuthroat Trout, and Pacific Lamprey.


Project Location

Latitude Longitude Description
46' 12'' 123' 32" Blind Slough is located in the community of Brownsmead, Oregon at approximately RM 27 to RM 29 in the Columbia River Estuary.


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

RPA
Action 160

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

This information comes from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) reviews of this project proposal. The following table represents BPA & NMFS determinations as to this proposal's relevance to particular Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs).

Reviewing Agency Action Number BiOp Agency Description
NMFS Action 160 NMFS The Corps and BPA, working with LCREP, shall develop and implement an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting and enhancing 10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats over 10 years, beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed populations in the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River. The Corps shall seek funds for the Federal share of the program, and BPA shall provide funding for the non-Federal share. The Action Agencies shall provide planning and engineering expertise to implement the non-Federal share of on-the-ground habitat improvement efforts identified in LCREP, Action 2.


Information Transfer

The expected outcomes of this project are:
Quantitative
Qualitative
Indirect

Data generated by this project are:
Derived

Are there restrictions on the use of this data?
None

Where do the data reside?
Private/Managed Locally:

Printed
Electronic

Public Access: [no information]


In what other ways will information from this project be transferred or used?

Effectiveness monitoring and project implementation results will be applied to other restoration projects in the Columbia River Estuary through presentations/updates at the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership's Science Work Group and local area watershed councils.


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: Fund designation from 4/30/03 BPA decisions spreadsheet; 200302300
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1998-2001 Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce & Lower Columbia River Estuary Program. Development and Implementation of a Wetland Program for the Columbia River Estuary and Lower Columbia River
2001 Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce & Lower Columbia River Estuary Program. Habitat Restoration Site Inventory
2001 Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce, Lower Columbia River Estuary Program, Army Corps of Engineers and American Rivers. Draft Habitat Criteria Summary/Workshop Outcomes, Lower Columbia River


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description
0 Refine and Implement the Habitat Restoration Program for the Columbia River Estuary and Lower Columbia River New project funding will continue support of CREST / LCREP Wetland Program.


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
Complete necessary feasibility studies, engineering, planning, and specifications required for project design and environmental compliance. a. Conduct an Environmental Assessment b. Conduct survey work, engineering, and modeling c. Develop Ecosystem Restoration Report FY 2003 $ 61,500 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

n/a or no information


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
Restore Blind Slough's connectivity to seven miles of slough channel previously isolated from tidal influence due to dikes and constrained culverts. a. Install 81 x 59 inch arch culvert and new water control structure at Aldrich Point. FY 2003 $ 13,500 x
b. Install 81 x 59 inch arch culvert through railroad embankment. FY 2003 $ 6,000 x
c. Excavate historic channel through Long Island Dairy reconecting Blind Slough to arm of Saspal Slough. FY 2003 $ 14,400 x
d. Install 48 inch culvert to restore connection to Saspal Slough. FY 2003 $ 5,100 x
e. Install 81 x 59 inch arch culvert to enhance channel connection at Leino Lane road crossing FY 2003 $ 3,000 x
f. Breach dike crossing by installing two 81 inch culverts with aluminum lid tidegates. FY 2003 $ 33,000 x
g. Install 48 inch culvert at Anderson road crossing. FY 2003 $ 4,200 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

n/a or no information


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

n/a or no information


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Establish one year pre-project monitoring and a four year post-project effectiveness monitoring program measuring water quality changes. a. Develop water quality monitoring plan. FY 2003 $ 4,000  
b. Purchase and set up three continuous water quality monitoring stations. FY 2003 $ 14,850  
c. Conduct pre-project monitoring. FY 2003 $ 5,000  
2. Establish one year pre-project monitoring and a four year post project effectiveness monitoring program measuring anadromous fish use. a. Develop a fish monitoring plan. FY 2003 $ 4,000  
b. Use seining capture techniques at three monitoring sites to establish pre-project fish species composition. FY 2003 $ 5,000  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
Post-project effectiveness water quality monitoring. 2004 2007 $ 10,000
Post-project effectiveness fish use monitoring. 2004 2007 $ 10,000


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2003 Cost
NEPA EA documentation for Blind Slough restoration to be completed by Corps of Engineers $ 61,500
Subcontractor Corps of Engineers Section 1135 restoration project implementation $ 79,200
Other CREST monitoring program development and implementation. $ 32,850
Total Itemized Budget $173,550


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 project cost $173,550
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2003 budget request $173,550
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Complete necessary feasibility studies, engineering, planning, and specifications required for project design and environmental compliance. $184,500 cash
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Restore Blind Slough's connectivity to seven miles of slough channel previously isolated from tidal influence due to dikes and constrained culverts. $237,600 cash

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2004 2005 2006 2007
Monitoring and evaluation $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total Outyear Budgets $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 2002-2 Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
This project is to restore tidal exchange between the Columbia River estuary and Blind Slough. BPA funds will be used to cost-share USACE funding, as well as to pay for project planning, design, and effectiveness monitoring. Blind Slough is in an important area for reconnection because of its proximity to a biologically productive island network and its location in the oligohaline zone where young salmon acclimate to salt water. Proposed activities under this project are connected to needs identified in other programs and documents. The project is tied to other projects on juvenile salmonid behavior and builds on some locally initiated reconnection projects. It was evident that the project has excellent local involvement and support.

The objectives of the project are to conduct feasibility studies, restore connectivity of the Slough in seven places, and to conduct both pre-and post-project monitoring to evaluate changes in water quality and level of fish use for rearing, foraging and spawning. Overall, the objectives and tasks seem appropriate to the goal, but more information could be provided about how and why the seven reconnection sites were chosen and whether these seven reconnection sites are expected to be sufficient. The monitoring is hypothesis driven, but hypothesis 2 isn't really testable in this form. This hypothesis needs to be written in a more testable way. The proposal recognizes the value of effectiveness monitoring but should likely solicit statistical advice on survey designs before monitoring begins and establish sampling methods and protocols. For the response, proponents should refer to the programmatic section of this report, specifically on monitoring and evaluation.

The proposal shows good potential for benefits to fish and wildlife, but a response is requested on a few issues:

  1. There was concern whether the tidegates are going to provide adequate access at both the upper and lower ends of the Slough. The Corps should seriously consider how they are going to get enough flow and fish into the system. How will effectiveness of these gates be assessed?
  2. Pre-project monitoring should address the current fish populations and in particular the predator populations. In these slow moving tidal environments this could be a significant limitation to the benefits of the program.
  3. This proposal could be developed into an important habitat restoration experiment. Activities similar to this are likely to become increasingly important and would benefit from a well-executed study. The involvement of other research organizations could provide staff for monitoring and expansion of investigations. For example, the installation of PIT detection arrays at the inlet and outlet of the Slough could provide important additional information on survival, duration of use, habitat use versus flow rates, etc.
  4. If the objectives of the proposal are met and salmonids utilize the slough for rearing, the next step in this restoration would be the reconnection of land with the waterway. Is there any associated acquisition plan or program that could build on this initiative?

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
$173,550 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 2002-11 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fundable if they meet the conditions listed below.

The response is mostly adequate, although tentative. The response indicates that the selection of the seven sites was determined by landowner consent, rather than by scientific criteria. Selection of additional sites will also be opportunity, rather than need, driven. Regarding statistical design for project monitoring, the response indicates that a monitoring design will be developed by scientific advisors and in collaboration with ongoing monitoring efforts in the area. The description of how tidegate effectiveness will be monitored does not provide specifics but refers to "appropriate metrics and monitoring protocols." The strongest aspect of the response is the reference to coordination and collaboration possibilities with other agencies working in the area. A plan to implement this coordination rather than reference to the potential for such coordination would be a good idea and the ISRP continues to recommend that the participation or advice of a more quantitative researcher be sought for this program.

While the response was adequate, we believe that it continues to point out the need for more technical support in the development of sampling and monitoring designs, and in the basic experimental design (as noted in point 3 of the response). The monitoring program should be designed before work begins and should include a pre-program assessment of the predator populations. The response suggests that the "longer-term considerations" of the program outweigh concern for the predators but our point was that the predators may preclude the benefits of this work. We also hope that the respondents are correct but our need is to assess the results of this program, and predators will be a significant concern in the assessment.


NMFS Review Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project will improve habitat for juvenile salmonids potentially increasing survival for this life stage.

Comments
This proposal is a good quality restoration project. It is part of a larger restoration program proposed by LCREP and member organizations (CREST). There is high public support for this project. The project will benefit ocean-type juvenile anadromous fish. The RPA ocean type ESUs are COL CHUM and (possibly) SR FCH. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


BPA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
A w/conditions
Date:
Jul 23, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Restores about seven miles of slough channels; need to address ISRP concerns and questions regarding appropriateness of Corps' NEPA funding.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
2003 2004 2005
$173,550 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Comment:

Columbia Estuary Issue 2: Columbia Estuary Habitat Restoration Projects, Blind Slough Restoration (Project 30004); Preserve and Restore Columbia River Estuary Islands (30011); Implement the Habitat Restoration Program for the Columbia Estuary and the Lower Columbia River (30016)

Council Recommendation: There are several new projects submitted for the Columbia Estuary Province that address habitat restoration, a key part of the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion. BPA investment in habitat restoration in the Columbia Estuary had been very limited in past Fish and Wildlife programs. The Columbia Estuary provides the last feeding and rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids prior to entering the Pacific Ocean. For this reason, the Biological Opinion considers the estuary vital, not only for salmonids in the lower basin, but also for anadromous fish throughout the basin. These three projects present similar issues in their efforts to purchase and restore habitat to address RPA 160 of the Biological Opinion and to leverage other funding sources to implement the projects.

The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) proposes in project 30004 to restore the tidal exchange between the Columbia River Estuary and Blind Slough in the community of Brownsmead, Oregon. BPA funds will be used to match U.S. Army Corps Section 1135 funding for 25% of the total project costs. CBFWA rated the project as a Recommended Action. The ISRP rated the proposal as fundable, but according to the review, the selection of the seven sites was determined by landowner consent rather than by scientific criteria. The description of how tidegate effectiveness will be monitored does not provide specifics, but refers to "appropriate metrics and monitoring protocols." ISRP believed the monitoring program should be designed before work begins on the project and that there should be a pre-program assessment of predator populations. Both NOAA Fisheries and BPA supported the project as implementation of RPA 160, though Bonneville commented that ISRP concerns should be addressed.

Project 30016 seeks to establish a program to identify and prioritize on-the-ground habitat restoration projects and plan their monitoring and evaluation. Sponsors the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP) and CREST want to take action on six restoration projects already processed and approved through regional and local work groups. This project is intended to leverage $2 million in funds from the Corps of Engineers, pending Congressional appropriation.

CBFWA provided a Recommended Action recommendation for the proposal. The ISRP states that the likely fish and wildlife benefits of this project are high and therefore recommends funding. Project sponsors were commended for undergoing a thorough and scientifically defensible approach to selection of restoration sites. The ISRP raises a policy question - "Should the Basin direct such large funding into purchases at the likely expense of many more investigative projects?" Although ISRP gave a "fundable in part" recommendation, there is no clear indication in the written review about which part is not fundable. The Council believes the ISRP recommendation pertains to the potential cost of fully funding the program given the level of funding in these provinces. Both Bonneville and NOAA Fisheries support the project as essential implementation of RPAs 160 and 159.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service would purchase 626 acres on Crims and Walker Islands and restore tidal emergent marsh and riparian forest habitat by enhancing tidal channels to provide juvenile salmonid rearing/ foraging habitat and to achieve the recovery of the Columbian whitetailed deer in project 30011. The project would use Bonneville funds as a 25% cost share to leverage COE section 1135 funding for purchase of these islands and their enhancement. The ISRP ranked the project as fundable, but noted that the project is relying heavily on the refuge personnel's working knowledge of local hydrology. CBFWA provided a High Priority recommendation. Both NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville supported the project in their comments indicating that it would implement RPA 160 of the Biological Opinion.

The Council supports all three projects as vital to the implementation of RPA 160 (protect and enhance 10,000 acres of tidal wetlands over 10 years). The Council also feels that the cost share element of each project and the efforts to leverage Bonneville funding are encouraging and supports this approach to address ESA implementation. (See Lower Columbia and Estuary General Issue 4.) Although it supports all three projects, the Council agrees with Bonneville and the ISRP that the concerns raised by ISRP about project 30004's monitoring should be addressed and a monitoring plan developed, with ISRP and Council approval, prior to any implementation actions occurring.

Funds for these projects would come from the unallocated placeholder since funding these projects would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces.


BPA Funding Decision Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 30, 2003
2003
$173,550
Comment:
Fund to implement RPA 160

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005 2006
$ 96,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Funding Category: Expense

Comment:
Change in construction schedule. 03 will be less than spreadsheet. Construction won't take place until 2004. 82.5 K for 03, 96K for 04. 5K for 05. BPA cost share was 25% back of envelope calculation. Cost has increased after review, need additional 15K for 04, an urgent type of request. Project shortfall for 2004. Would then need 111K, COE would have to put project on hold to find the additional money. Need to do work in dry period. Need to be out of the period by October 15. Could make an adjustment at the program status review for the project to move forward.

Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05 Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005
$ 96,000 $ 5,000

Funding Category: Expense

Comment:

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 77,550
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 96,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 96,000
Sponsor (CREST) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page