FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 200301100

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
30016 Narrative	Narrative
30016 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
30016 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Columbia Estuary: Columbia Estuary Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Estuary: Columbia Estuary Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Implement the Habitat Restoration Program for the Columbia Estuary and Lower Columbia River
Proposal ID	200301100
Organization	Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (LCREP/CREST)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Debrah Marriott
Mailing address	811 SW Naito Parkway Suite 120 Portland, OR 97204
Phone / email	5032261565 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Debrah Marriott, Director
Review cycle	Columbia Estuary
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Estuary / 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
46.259	-124.0582	Mouth of Columbia River
46.6658	-121.8554	Bonneville Dam

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
159
160

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	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.
NMFS	Action 159	NMFS	BPA and the Corps, working with LCREP and NMFS, shall develop a plan addressing the habitat needs of salmon and steelhead in the estuary.
NMFS	Action 160	NMFS	The Corps and BPA, working with LCREP, shall develop and implement an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting and enhancing 10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats over 10 years, beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed populations in the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River. The Corps shall seek funds for the Federal share of the program, and BPA shall provide funding for the non-Federal share. The Action Agencies shall provide planning and engineering expertise to implement the non-Federal share of on-the-ground habitat improvement efforts identified in LCREP, Action 2.
NMFS/BPA	Action 160	NMFS	The Corps and BPA, working with LCREP, shall develop and implement an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting and enhancing 10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats over 10 years, beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed populations in the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River. The Corps shall seek funds for the Federal share of the program, and BPA shall provide funding for the non-Federal share. The Action Agencies shall provide planning and engineering expertise to implement the non-Federal share of on-the-ground habitat improvement efforts identified in LCREP, Action 2.
BPA	Action 159	NMFS	BPA and the Corps, working with LCREP and NMFS, shall develop a plan addressing the habitat needs of salmon and steelhead in the estuary.
BPA	Action 160	NMFS	The Corps and BPA, working with LCREP, shall develop and implement an estuary restoration program with a goal of protecting and enhancing 10,000 acres of tidal wetlands and other key habitats over 10 years, beginning in 2001, to rebuild productivity for listed populations in the lower 46 river miles of the Columbia River. The Corps shall seek funds for the Federal share of the program, and BPA shall provide funding for the non-Federal share. The Action Agencies shall provide planning and engineering expertise to implement the non-Federal share of on-the-ground habitat improvement efforts identified in LCREP, Action 2.

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	Yes
2	2.2 Skipanon Slough	3	$60,000	Yes
2	2.3 Gray's Bay	3	$800,000	Yes
2	2.4 Channel Is.	3	$0
2	2.5 Scappoose Bay	3	$0
2	2.6 Rooster Rock	3	$0

Outyear objectives-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	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1		$0
2 Project implementation	2.1 West Sand Is.	$509,000	Yes
2	2.2 Skipanon Slough	$240,000	Yes
2	2.3 Gray's Bay	$3,200,000	Yes
2	2.4 Channel Is.	$0
2	2.5 Scappoose Bay	$0
2	2.6 Rooster Rock	$0

Outyear objectives-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 objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
n/a			$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
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 objectives-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
		$5,236,200

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 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%

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

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. 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?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Proposal represents two projects under one project number. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

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.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

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

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

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.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

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.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Apr 30, 2003

Comment:

Fund to implement RPA 159, 160

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

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.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

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:
$1,000,000	$1,000,000	$1,000,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website