FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 200301300

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
30005 Narrative	Narrative
30005 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
Appendix A: Maps and Photos	Narrative Attachment
30005 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Columbia Estuary: Grays Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Estuary: Grays Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Grays River Watershed and Biological Assessment
Proposal ID	200301300
Organization	Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Pacific States Marine Fish Commission, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (LCFRB/PSMFC/PNNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Gary Wade
Mailing address	2127 8th Avenue Longview, WA. 98632
Phone / email	3604251555 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Jeff Breckel
Review cycle	Columbia Estuary
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Estuary / Grays
Short description	Conduct a watershed and biological assessment of the Grays River watershed to protect and restore chum spawning habitat
Target species	Columbia River chum salmon, Lower Columbia River chinook salmon, Lower Columbia winter steelhead

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.36	-123.57	Grays River enters the Columbia River at River Mile 21
		The project will include the Grays River and all major tributaries above State Route 4

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
#157
#177

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
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 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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199900301	Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Columbia Dams	One goal of that project is to perform intensive spawning ground surveys for chum salmon habitat and opportunities for restoration. This proposal will complement those efforts.
200001200	Evaluate Factors Limiting Columbia River Gorge Chum Salmon Populations	The primary purpose of that project is to evaluate factors limiting chum salmon production in Hamilton and Hardy creeks plus the mainstem Columbia. This proposal will expand the coverage into the Grays River.
	StreamNet	This proposal will provide information on spawning distribution and habitat use by Grays River chum for the StreamNet database.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

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. Conduct watershed analysis of Grays River Basin that includes a geomorphic, hydrologic, and stream channel assessment.	a. Characterize historic and existing geomorphic and stream channel conditions within the watershed.	1	$149,693	Yes
	b. Develop a hydrologic model of the Grays River Basin.	3	$90,000
	c. Integrate results from geomorphic, stream channel, and hydrologic modeling.	2	$0
2. Define critical habitat features within chum and fall chinook salmon spawning areas in Grays River.	a. Survey and map chum and chinook spawning sites in the Grays River subbasin	3	$47,084
	b. Conduct limits analysis for depth, substrate, and velocity at representative habitat types/locations.		$106,399
	c. Select and describe appropriate geomorphic features and hyporheic zone characteristics in areas where limits analysis suggested spawning should occur.	3	$81,558
	d. Compare available spawning habitat to habitat actually used.	2	$0
3. Completion of final project report.	a. Prepare final report/paper.	1	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Conduct watershed analysis of Grays River Basin that includes a geomorphic, hydrologic, and stream channel assessment.	2004	2005	$125,000
2. Define critical habitat features within chum and fall chinook salmon spawning areas in Grays River.	2004	2005	$425,696
3. Completion of final project report.	2005	2005	$140,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$325,348	$365,348

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

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

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
Personnel	FTE: 2.05 Total (PNNL 1.25 FTE cost 78,863; PSMFC 0.6 FTE cost $28,020; LCFRB 0.2 FTE cost $12,035	$118,918
Fringe	PNNL 26%; PSMFC 38%/16%; LCFRB 28%	$45,907
Supplies	PNNL $17,163; PSMFC $1,000; LCFRB $10,000	$28,163
Travel	PNNL $11,168; PSMFC $2,700; LCFRB $2,500	$16,368
Indirect	PNNL $135,458 ; PSMFC $5,920	$141,378
Subcontractor	Geomorphologial and stream channel assessment (contractor yet to be determined)	$124,000
		$474,734

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$474,734
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$474,734
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This proposal is to assess the Grays River watershed and to protect and restore chum salmon habitat. Stable spawning habitat is considered to be a critical limiting factor to the production of chum on the Grays River, but information on how to provide habitat is lacking. This proposal will conduct hydrological, geomorphological, and spawning stock assessments to evaluate the overall condition of the watershed and to develop a prioritized list of actions to restore habitat. Grays River contains one genetic group of threatened chum salmon. Various land use activities on unstable ground have damaged spawning habitat. Restoration projects must address the question of sediment transport and deposition under current riparian conditions.

The proposal fits well into regional programs and is well connected to other projects. The prioritized list of actions will be available to be integrated into other projects. The objectives tasks and methods describe a systematic approach to the identification of limits to and characteristics of spawning habitat.

An area the proposal could discuss in more detail is what happens after the geomorphology and hydrology of the watershed is evaluated. Are there reasonable actions that can be taken to stabilize the riparian zone or is instability a basic feature of this riparian area? Instability is a common feature of chum spawning areas.

The assessment should focus on the upstream processes that would indicate whether the channel movement is much more dynamic than in the past; e.g. is habitat alteration from logging causing downstream instability? Are there fixable damages?

The response should better detail the sequence of the watershed assessment and the subsequent rehabilitation effort. The effort should focus first on the assessment. For the response, proponents should refer to the programmatic section of this report on watershed assessments and prioritization of habitat restoration projects. The protection of chum in the region needs to be better described; apparently, the Chinook river artificial production project is intended to protect Gray's river stock.

Additionally, the response should address the prospects for sedimentation in the lower river at the confluence of the Grays with the Columbia. Is that a limiting factor?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

This project scope and budget should be considered along with all the chum salmon projects. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable in part to do the watershed assessment including hydrological, geomorphological, habitat, and fish elements. The objectives, tasks and methods describe a systematic approach to the identification of limits and characteristics of spawning habitat. The response is adequate in its description of regional actions taken to protect chum and the issue of sedimentation in the lower river, but remains tentative and conditional about the sequence of watershed assessments and the possible future actions that could be taken to stabilize the riparian zone, restore habitat and protect chum. The response emphasizes the need for a baseline assessment to understand the nature of the system's instability. The assessment should focus on the upstream processes that would indicate whether the channel instability will continue or possibly stabilize.

The proposal fits well into regional programs and is well connected to other projects. After the assessment is completed a prioritized list of actions should be constructed for integration into other projects.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Project is to conduct a watershed and biological assessment of the Grays River watershed to protect and restore chum spawning habitat

Comments
This is a good quality proposal. The watershed assessment portion of this proposal is ready to implement and fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Grays River supports one genetic group of threatened chum salmon.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Grays River Issue 1: Grays River Watershed and Biological Assessment (Project 30005)

Council Recommendation: The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories propose to conduct a watershed and biological assessment of the Grays River watershed to protect and restore chum spawning habitat. CBFWA designated the project as High Priority. The ISRP provided a fundable in part recommendation to conduct the watershed assessment including hydrological, geomorphological, habitat, and fish elements.

NOAA Fisheries considers the proposal to be of high quality and worthy of funding. The watershed assessment portion of the proposal partially fulfills the Biological Opinion action - RPA 157. The BPA review indicates that the Grays River supports one genetic group of chum salmon. This is one of the reasons for the agency giving the project an "A" ranking.

The Council struggled to understand the ISRP recommendation since review of this project by its staff led to the conclusion that the project is already limited to the elements ISRP supported. After further inquiry, the apparent ISRP concern about the project stemmed from the size of the budget and the belief that project sponsors were including implementation elements within the budget of an assessment project. Council staff investigated the ISRP concern and believes that project sponsors have not included implementation actions within the proposed budget and therefore the project should be funded as submitted. The program fits well into regional programs and is well connected to other projects. The Council recommends that the project be funded.

Funds for the new Project 30005 would come from the unallocated placeholder since funding this project would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund when Funds available. Not critical.

Date:
Apr 30, 2003

Comment:

Phase 3 will be initiated upon resolution of identified issues. This project would likely implement RPA 178, 182 and 184. BPA has determined in coordination with NOAA Fisheries that this project is not critical for the FY03 - 05 check-ins. Projects may be funded when sufficient funds are available.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Phase 3 project. Budgets realigned

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Since we didn't receive funding in FY 2003, this revision moves the original FY 2003 amount to 2004, and the 2004 amount to 2005. Thanks, Gary Wade

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$325,348	$325,348	$325,348

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website