FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 200301500

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

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?

Comment:

Comment:

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.

Comment:

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

Comment:

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.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website