FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31030
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 |
|---|---|
| Estimated River Stage & Stage Occurrence Interval vs. Effect on Bypass Pipe from Screen | Response Attachment |
| Estimated River Stage & Stage Occurrence Interval vs. Effect on Tailrace Weir | Response Attachment |
| Cover Letter | Narrative Attachment |
| Richard E. Craven Resume | Narrative Attachment |
| Kevin L. Crew Resume | Narrative Attachment |
| Larry Trosi | Narrative Attachment |
| 31030 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31030 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Santiam Water Control District Fish Screen and Passage Project |
| Proposal ID | 31030 |
| Organization | Santiam Water Control District (SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Larry Trosi, Santiam Water Control District |
| Mailing address | 284 East Water Street Stayton, Oregon 97383 |
| Phone / email | 5037692669 / ltrosi@aol.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Larry Trosi, Manager, SWCD |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Protect fisheries resources, especially threatened and endangered species by planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a fish screen, fish bypass and fish barrier on the SWCD canal (N. Santiam River) in Stayton, Oregon. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook ESU - Threatened Winter Steelhead ESU - Threatened Oregon Chub - Endangered Summer Steelhead - Not Listed Coho Salmon - Not Listed Rainbow Trout - Not Listed |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 44.7877 | -122.7772 | SWCD Canal, Stayton, Oregon |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| not applicable |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Met with project stakeholders and affected agencies. Prepared the Fish screening and Passage Project Concept Paper for review by the agencies. Obtained written approval for selected alternatives from NMFS and ODFW. |
| 2001 | Continued consultation with NMFS and ODFW and stakeholders. Refined alternatives. Developed preliminary design documents. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| none |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Planning for Fish Protection | a. Stakeholder and agency input | On-going | $0 | |
| 1 | b. Develop Alternative Analysis | $0 | Yes | |
| 1 | c. Solicit selected alternative | $0 | Yes | |
| 2. Design of Fish Protection Facilities | a. Data gathering | 1 | $0 | Yes |
| 2 | b. Agency Input | 1 | $0 | |
| 2 | c. Refine alternative | 1 | $0 | |
| 2 | d. Perform preliminary design | 1 | $0 | |
| 2 | e. Input from agencies and stakeholders | 1 | $0 | |
| 2 | f. Perform final design | 1 | $0 |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Construction of Fish Protection Facilities | a. Select methods (i.e. SWCD/contractor) | 1 | $0 | |
| 1 | b. Perform public bid process | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
| 1 | c. Select contractor and perform construction | 1 | $340,000 | Yes |
| 1 | d. prepare O&M manuals for facilities | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Maintain facilities and monitor effectiveness. | 2003 | 2004 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Operate and Maintain Fish Protection Facilities | a. Operate and maintain facilities | on-going | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Operate and Maintain Fish Protection Facilities | 2003 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor and Evaluate Effectiveness of Facilities | a. Fish Screen | 2 | $0 | |
| 1 | b. Fish Bypass | 2 | $0 | |
| 1 | c. Tailrace barrier | 2 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor and Evaluate Effectiveness of Facilities | 2003 | 2004 | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Capital | $350,000 | |
| $350,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $350,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $350,000 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Santiam Water Control District | fish screen, tailrace barrier | $440,000 | cash |
| Santiam Water Control District | Operation and Maintenance | $75,000 | in-kind |
| Santiam Water Control District | NEPA | $42,000 | cash |
| Santiam Water Control District | monitoring | $25,000 | in-kind |
| City of Stayton | fish screen | $100,000 | cash |
| Marion County Soil and Water | Stream bank | $5,000 | in-kind |
| North Santiam Watershed Council | Public Meetings/Public Education and Outreach | $5,000 | in-kind |
| ODFW Fish Screen Funding Program | Fish Screen | $200,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
none
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. While the proposal indicates that substantial planning for the construction of the facilities have been conducted, the proposal provides no information on the scale of the problem for FWP to be addressed by this proposal. A response is needed concerning what makes this a priority screening project (stated top 5 priority in Oregon)? The proposal requests funds for construction and refers to monitoring and evaluation but no methods are described. The proposal does show excellent cost sharing. Unfortunately, there is nothing for the ISRP to review technically and to comment on ... until we receive a revised and more informative proposal.Comment:
CBFWA supports this project for it's benefits to fish; however, CBFWA does not support Bonneville funding for this action. Although Bonneville has funded passage and screens throughout the basin, this project directly generates income for the district anComment:
Fundable. The response provides additional information to explain why this screening project is considered high priority and the project has excellent cost sharing arrangements. The funds requested are for one year only. The plan to monitor performance of the screen appears to have the appropriate components although consultation with a biologist on ways to quantify changes in species and habitats would be desirable. As noted in the above two proposals (#31025, #31028), background data on fish seems very limited for some reason. This project could have significant benefits to fish given the volume of the intake and the upstream use of habitat by winter and summer steelhead, and spring and fall Chinook (noted in #31028). Among the Willamette proposals, this appears to be of high priority.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotential improvement of survival
Comments
Needed fixes and improvement - Initial consultation underway.
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: