FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31032
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 |
|---|---|
| 31032 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 31032 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31032 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop a Well Water Supply System for the Hardy Creek Chum Salmon Spawning Channel |
| Proposal ID | 31032 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Columbia River Fisheries Program Office and Pierce National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Howard Schaller |
| Mailing address | 9317 Highway 99, Suite I Vancouver, WA 98665 |
| Phone / email | 3606967605 / howard_schaller@r1.fws.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Howard Schaller and Jim Clapp |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| Short description | Develop a well water supply system for the Hardy Creek chum salmon spawning channel. This system will mimic spring and seepage flow to ensure that water will be provided to the spawning channel during subfreezing weather when Hardy Creek is frozen. |
| Target species | Chum Salmon. This species is part of the Evolutionarily Significant Unit for Columbia River chum salmon. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.63 | -122.0025 | Section 41 T24N, R7E |
| Project is on Pierce National Wildlife Refuge east of Beacon Rock State Park, Washington. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 16 |
| Action 157 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 16 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall operate the FCRPS to provide access for chum salmon spawning in Hamilton and Hardy creeks. |
| NMFS | Action 157 | NMFS | BPA shall fund actions to improve and restore tributary and mainstem habitat for CR chum salmon in the reach between The Dalles Dam and the mouth of the Columbia River. |
| BPA | Action 156 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall study the feasibility (including both biological benefits and ecological risks) of habitat modification to improve spawning conditions for chum salmon in the Ives Island area. |
| BPA | Action 157 | NMFS | BPA shall fund actions to improve and restore tributary and mainstem habitat for CR chum salmon in the reach between The Dalles Dam and the mouth of the Columbia River. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Chum salmon spawning channel adjacent to Hardy Creek was constructed. The Corps of Engineers provided funding for the spawning channel. Drought conditions precluded use of the channel in the fall of 2000. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 200001200 | Evaluate Factors Limiting Columbia River Gorge Chum Salmon Populations | A primary objective of this project is to enhance and restore chum salmon production in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks. The proposed well system will contribute to this objective in Hardy Creek. |
| 199900301 | Evaluation of Spawning for Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Columbia River Dams | Data from spawning channel chum salmon will be provided to the participants in this study. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conduct environmental analysis | a. Complete NEPA analysis | 1 | $1,500 | |
| b. Conduct cultural resources analysis | 1 | $1,000 | ||
| c. Acquire water right | 1 | $1,500 | ||
| d. Complete ESA evaluation | 1 | $1,000 |
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. Develop a well water supply and distribution system for the Hardy Creek spawning channel | a. Drill well (Fish and Wildlife Service would fund $50k of the original $52.5k which leaves $2.5k for FY03 cost | 1 | $2,500 | Yes |
| b. Install pump and electrical connection | 1 | $20,500 | Yes | |
| c. Install pipes and injection nozzles | 1 | $27,500 | Yes | |
| d. Pay Skamania County sales tax | 1 | $9,300 | Yes |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Supply up to 1,000 gallons per minute from the well | a. Pay electrical power costs | Life of the project (50 years) | $5,000 | |
| 2. Maintain well system reliability | a. Remove and replace pump motor | Once every 15 years | $0 | Yes |
| b. Remove and replace worn or damaged pipes and nozzles | Once every 10 years | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. $5,000 per year is requested to pay for electrical power costs to operate the well pump. | 2004 | 2007 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitor spawning channel use by chum salmon | a. Monitor streamflow in Hardy Creek and in the chum salmon spawning channel (cost share for USFWS: $8,600) | 4 | $0 | |
| b. Monitor adult chum spawning (cost share for USFWS: $6,300) | 4 | $0 | ||
| c. Monitor juvenile chum salmon emigration (cost share for USFWS: $15,400) | 4 | $0 |
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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Supplies | Electrical Power | $5,000 |
| Capital | Pump and electrical connections | $48,000 |
| NEPA | $5,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Well Drilling Company | $2,500 |
| Other | Skamania County Sales Tax | $9,300 |
| $69,800 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $69,800 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $69,800 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corps of Engineers | Construction of spawning channel in FY2000 | $36,000 | cash |
| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Monitoring of Hardy Creek and spawning channel streamflows, adult salmon spawning, and smolt emigration | $30,300 | in-kind |
| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Well Drilling | $50,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal from the USFWS requests $152.5k to develop a well water supply system for the Hardy Creek chum salmon spawning channel to ensure water when the creek is frozen. Chum is listed species, and Hardy Creek is a known chum salmon spawning area. Chum spawning in Hardy Creek is hindered by sediment deposition from Columbia River backwater in flood events every 2-5 years, so a spawning channel was constructed in 2000 (USACE funds) to contribute to recovery of Columbia River chum through the increase in habitat. The channel gets water diverted from the Creek when sufficient water is available. Drought conditions in 2000 prevented water form reaching the channel.The concern this proposal addresses is the effect of freezing winter temperatures on eggs and fry in the channel if the water supply is reduced or cut off from the Creek. A well could supplement water in the channel during these times at 1,000 gallons per minute. The well could also be used to simulate spring flow. The proposal is for assessment, construction and maintenance of the well but monitoring of the channel and chum use will take place under the related project 2000-012-00. Potential FWP benefits could be significant as the channel capacity for chum spawning is designed at six times that in Hardy Creek.
A response is required because the proposal is technically deficient of any information to review. The obvious issue is do you write past investments off or continue to fund improvements that could become substantial over time. Given the status of chum salmon in the lower Columbia River, the expected response should likely be to proceed, but there are several questions that the proponents could provide background information on. For example:
- Chum did not use the channel in 2000 due to drought, but did chum enter the channel during 2001? How did they distribute through the channel?
- Is there any concern regarding the removal of 1,000 gpm on proximal streams, especially Hardy Creek? Is there any concern for acquiring the Water Right? The volume to be pumped is large, how was this volume determined?
- Water temperature of the well water is likely to be warmer than surface, has there been any assessment of the potential effect on rates of egg development and emigration of chum fry?
- What is the basis of water supply system proposed and is there any experience in the construction of artificial upwelling for chum spawning? Is there any evidence that chum will utilize this design?
- Is there any management plan for the chum spawning populations in the Hardy Creek - Ives Island group (i.e., will the channels be loaded as a priority or will use be voluntary by the chum salmon)?
While we acknowledge the potential importance of an effective channel as a safe spawning refuge for these chum salmon, there is an apparently need to more fully consider the management of these chum spawning groups. The issue of 2 in 5 years flooding in the lower reaches of the streams is a concern that could be addressed by modifying the slope of the lower river to encourage chum to move above that area. The ISRP would recommend a more comprehensive consideration of production and management plans for these chum spawners and how the channel factors into these plans.
Comment:
Budget has been reduced to $69,800 -- see response to the ISRP for an explanation. NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable. This proposal from the USFWS requests $152.5k to develop a well water supply system for the Hardy Creek chum salmon spawning channel to ensure water when the creek is frozen. Chum is a listed species and Hardy Creek is a known chum salmon spawning area. Chum spawning in Hardy Creek is hindered by sediment deposition from Columbia River backwater in flood events every 2-5 years, so a spawning channel was constructed in 2000 (USACE funds) to contribute to recovery of Columbia River chum through the increase in habitat. The channel gets water diverted from the Creek when sufficient water is available. Drought conditions in 2000 prevented water from reaching the channel.The concern this proposal addresses is the effect of freezing winter temperatures on eggs and fry in the channel if the water supply is reduced or cut off from the Creek. A well could supplement water in the channel during these times at 1,000 gallons per minute. The well could also be used to simulate spring flow. The proposal is for assessment, construction and maintenance of the well but monitoring of the channel and chum use will take place under the related project 2000-012-00. Potential FWP benefits could be significant as the channel capacity for chum spawning is designed at six times that in Hardy Creek.
The response adequately addresses the review questions including past chum use, water withdrawal issues (impact on Hardy Creek, water rights, water volume determination), water temperature effects on egg development and fry migration, and potential effectiveness of the upwelling design. Additionally, project redesign (several small wells in place of one large well) has lowered the project budget. Finally, the ISRP recommends that the project managers monitor potential concerns for interactions of the water movement between spawning sites.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUUncertain benefits
Comments
The technology behind this project (an underground sprinkler system to mimic hyporheic flow in a manmade chum spawning channel) is somewhat experimental in nature. If the underground sprinkler system functions as proposed, increased habitat in the spawning channel could increase natural production for the Bonneville chum population.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend funding to implement RPAs 156 and 157. This is part of the implementation of project #2000-012-00 to maintain open water in the spawning channel during winter freezing conditions.Comment: