Return to Proposal Finder FY 2003 Columbia Estuary Proposal 200301100

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 Implement the Habitat Restoration Program for the Columbia Estuary and Lower Columbia River
BPA Project Proposal Number 200301100
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce
Business acronym (if appropriate) LCREP/CREST
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Debrah Marriott
Mailing Address 811 SW Naito Parkway Suite 120
City, State, Zip Portland, OR 97204
Phone 5032261565
Fax 5032261580
E-mail marriott.debrah@lcrep.org
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Debrah Marriott, Director
 
Review Cycle Columbia Estuary
Province Columbia Estuary
Subbasin Columbia Estuary
 
Short Description Establish program to identify and prioritize on-the-ground habitat restoration projects and plan their monitoring and evaluation. Take action on six restoration projects already processed and approved through regional and local workgroups.
Target Species Target species in this ecosystem-based project include various fish and wildlife species as well as the 12 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of salmon listed by NMFS.


Project Location

Latitude Longitude Description
46.2647229N 124.0857592W Mouth of Columbia River
45.6658347N 121.8554293W Bonneville Dam


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

RPA
159
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 158 NMFS During 2001, the Corps and BPA shall seek funding and develop an action plan to rapidly inventory estuarine habitat, model physical and biological features of the historical lower river and estuary, identify limiting biological and physical factors in the estuary, identify impacts of the FCRPS system on habitat and listed salmon in the estuary relative to other factors, and develop criteria for estuarine habitat restoration.


Information Transfer

The expected outcomes of this project are:
Indirect

Data generated by this project are:
Indirect Data

Are there restrictions on the use of this data?
None

Where do the data reside?
Private/Managed Locally:
[no information]

Public Access:
Other Internet Location: www.lcrep.org


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

Project reports, technical presentations, journal articles


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: Fund designation from 4/30/03 BPA decisions spreadsheet; Contact info updated from Council, 11/10/03
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
2001 Coordinated effort to draft subbabsin summary for Lower Col. River and Estuary provinces (LCREP).
2001 Mapped habitats using hyperspectral technology (LCREP).
2001 Inventoried potential habitat restoration sites (CREST, LCREP).
2001 Convened and facilitated the estuary habitat workshop (Astoria, OR June 2001), a milestone event because of the cooperation among disparate parties and draft project selection criteria it produced (COE, CREST, LCREP).
1999 Wrote Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the estuary, which includes Action 2, the basis for RPA 160 (LCREP).
1999 Developed WETMAP, an inventory of current wetland protection activities and process for tracking wetland habitats (CREST, LCREP).
1997 Established Science Workgroup to provide technical support, guidance, and advice (LCREP).
1979 Wrote Columbia River Estuary Regional Management Plan (CREST).


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 2003 cost Subcontractor
1 Program 1.1 Program plan 3 $ 50,000  
1 1.2 Infrastructure 2 $ 25,000  
1 1.3 Project selection 2 $ 50,000  
1 1.4 Restoration guidelines 3 $100,000  
1 1.5 M&E plan and reporting 3 $ 75,000  
2 Project implementation 2.1 West Sand Is. 3 $127,200 x
2 2.2 Skipanon Slough 3 $ 60,000 x
2 2.3 Gray's Bay 3 $800,000 x
2 2.4 Channel Is. 3 $ 0  
2 2.5 Scappoose Bay 3 $ 0  
2 2.6 Rooster Rock 3 $ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1 Program 4 7 $500,000
2 Project implementation 4 7 $3,500,000


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$750,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1 $ 0  
2 Project implementation 2.1 West Sand Is. $509,000 x
2 2.2 Skipanon Slough $240,000 x
2 2.3 Gray's Bay $3,200,000 x
2 2.4 Channel Is. $ 0  
2 2.5 Scappoose Bay $ 0  
2 2.6 Rooster Rock $ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1 Program 4 7 $ 0
2 Project implementation 4 7 $17,500,000


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$3,750,000 $3,750,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
n/a $ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
n/a $ 0


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 $ 0  
2 2.1 West Sand Is. 3 $ 0  
2 2.2 Skipanon Slough 3 $ 0  
2 2.3 Gray's Bay 3 $ 0  
2 2.4 Channel Is. 3 $ 0  
2 2.5 Scappoose Bay 3 $ 0  
2 2.6 Rooster Rock 3 $ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1 Program $ 0
2 Project implementation 4 7 $2,800,000


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$600,000 $600,000 $800,000 $800,000


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2003 Cost
Personnel FTE: 2 $200,000
Fringe $ 40,000
Supplies $ 10,000
Travel $ 10,000
Indirect $ 52,000
Capital $3,949,000
NEPA $ 0
PIT tags $ 0
Subcontractor $975,200
Other $ 0
Total Itemized Budget $5,236,200


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 project cost $5,236,200
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2003 budget request $5,236,200
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
Corps of Engineers to be determined $ 0 cash
local groups to be determined $ 0 cash

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2004 2005 2006 2007
Planning and design $750,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Construction/implementation $3,750,000 $3,750,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
Monitoring and evaluation $600,000 $600,000 $800,000 $800,000
Total Outyear Budgets $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000
 

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:
A response is needed. The proposed property acquisitions need to be better justified. How did these specific projects meet the selection criteria? How much are the small-acreage efforts going to benefit fish and wildlife? What is current fish use and what is potential fish use? In Gray's Bay what is the sedimentation doing to that habitat? Another proposal is for an assessment of the Gray's subbasin (proposal 30005), why shouldn't that assessment include the bay? Doesn't disruption of the upper watershed have a large effect? For the response, proponents should refer to the programmatic section of this report on watershed assessments and prioritization of habitat restoration and acquisition projects.

What is the justification for the budgeted costs for FTE and fringe? How does the budget relate to particular tasks?


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
$5,236,200 $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $6,800,000 $6,800,000
Comment:
Proposal represents two projects under one project number. 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, the likely benefits to fish and wildlife appear to be high. One approach to this proposal would be to purchase properties as funding allows within the provincial allocation. The response is reassuring in its description of the selection process used to identify acquisition sites and in its provision of a detailed list of the projects considered with selection criteria used - the process seems to have been fair and as scientifically informed as possible. The responses to other questions (how much benefit from small acreages, what is current and potential fish use, effect or upper watershed disruptions), although not provided in quantifiable terms, were adequate.

This proposal presents an important issue for the Council to consider. While the purchase of properties is likely the best assurance of providing benefits to fish and wildlife, should the Basin direct such large funding into purchases at the likely expense of many more investigative projects? This type of trade-off has come up in other Provincial reviews also.


NMFS Review Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Implementation of restoration actions will conserve /restore salmonid habitats to potentially increase survival.

Comments
This project proposes to develop a series of restoration projects that have been screened through science-based habitat criteria. The proposed projects have regional acceptance and therefore a high likelihood of being implemented. The project applicant needs to develop a monitoring proposal to support the restoration efforts proposed. Funding the programmatic portion of this proposal provides the estuary province with a head start to develop the sub-basin plan for this province based on the LCREP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Perhaps the proposal can be split into separate restoration and program development proposals for easier funding. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


BPA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
A
Date:
Jul 23, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
This project is essential for implementation of RPA 160 and supports RPA 159; this is a project intended to be supported by both COE and BPA; fund if COE receives the appropriation.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
2003 2004 2005
$1,000,000 $1,034,000 $1,069,000
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
$1,000,000
Comment:
Fund to implement RPA 159, 160

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005 2006
$1,000,000 $1,034,000 $1,069,000

Funding Category: Expense

Comment:
Contracts are expected to execute in middle of August. Need to get going this year. Shifting the project one year, basically, likely to do first year of project in 2004. 2003 shifts. COE money will be in the budget for next year. No cost share for 2003, won't lose the WRDA funds.

Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05 Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005
$1,000,000 $1,034,000

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:
$1,000,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$1,000,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$1,000,000
Sponsor (Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page