FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31006
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 |
|---|---|
| Map: Woods Landing Chum Spawning Project Site1 | Narrative Attachment |
| Map: Woods Landing Chum Spawning Project Site2 | Narrative Attachment |
| 31006 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31006 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 31006 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Protect Wood's Landing Chum Spawning Site |
| Proposal ID | 31006 |
| Organization | City of Vancouver (Vancouver, WA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Vicky Ridge-Cooney |
| Mailing address | PO Box 1995 Vancouver WA 98668 |
| Phone / email | 3606968981 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Vicky Ridge-Cooney |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| Short description | Through acquisition of property and easements on 12 acres and 1000 feet of shoreline the project will protect a significant chum spawning site on the mainstem of the Columbia and will also restore the lower 350 feet of the adjacent creek. |
| Target species | Columbia River chum |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.5858 | -122.5283 | Site is in Vancouver, WA. From I-5 in Vancouver, E on Hwy 14, S on Ellsworth Rd, E on Evergreen Hwy, S across rr at Riverwood Lane, E then S to end of road |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 157 |
| 152 |
| 150 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 150 | NMFS | In subbasins with listed salmon and steelhead, BPA shall fund protection of currently productive non-Federal habitat, especially if at risk of being degraded, in accordance with criteria and priorities BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
| NMFS | Action 152 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following: |
| 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. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | WDFW restored habitat and Duncan Creek and re-introduced chum from Ives Island |
| 2000 | Columbia Land Trust acquired properties and easements at Gray's River, Eagle Island, Kalama River, and many other sites |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Plan acquisition of properties and easements | Task 1a. Appraise parcel B and north half of parcel D for fee simple value. | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
| Task 1b. Appraise parcels A, C, and south half of D for conservation easement value. | 1 | $15,000 | Yes | |
| Task 1c. Perform baseline inventory of parcels A,B,C,D. | 1 | $2,000 | ||
| Task 1d. Assess parcels A, B, C, D for hazardous substances. | 1 | $14,000 | Yes | |
| Task 1e. Assess parcels A, B,C, D for archaeological resources. | 1 | $4,000 | Yes | |
| Task 1f. Carry out NEPA process for acquisition sites. | 1 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| Objective 2. Design Joseph’s Creek restoration. | Task 2a. Survey site. | 1 | $10,000 | Yes |
| Task 2b. Develop engineering plans. | 1 | $15,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2c. Obtain permits. | 1 | $2,000 | ||
| Task 2d. Conduct Environmental Assessment including hazards assessment. | 1 | $3,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2e. Carry out the NEPA process for the restoration. | 1 | $2,000 | Yes |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Acquire properties and easements | Task 1a. Purchase parcel B. | 1 | $400,000 | |
| Task 1b. Purchase north half and tidelands of parcel D. | 1 | $360,110 | ||
| Task 1c. Purchase easement of Parcel C. | 1 | $100,000 | ||
| Task 1d. Record titles for Parcels A, B, C, D. | 1 | $200 | ||
| Task 1e. Pay taxes for all parcels. | 1 | $10,000 | ||
| Task 1f. Get title reports for all parcels. | 1 | $6,100 | ||
| Task 1g. Pay closing costs for all parcels. | 1 | $800 | ||
| Task 1h. Manage the acquisitions. | 1 | $64,350 | ||
| Objective 2. Restore the lower 350 feet of Joseph’s Creek to provide additional spawning gravel and stable banks vegetated with native riparian vegetation | $0 | |||
| Task 2a. Excavate sediment. | 1 | $31,600 | Yes | |
| Task 2b. Dewater stream. | 1 | $28,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2c. Control erosion. | 1 | $19,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2d. Mobilize for project. | 1 | $25,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2e. Place spawning rock. | 1 | $96,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2f. Place toe rock. | 1 | $26,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2g. Place stream channel structures. | 1 | $26,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2h. Remove invasive plants, stabilize banks, revegetate. | 1 | $13,000 | Yes | |
| Task 2i. Repair access road. | 1 | $2,200 | Yes | |
| Task 2j. Provide contingency funds. | 1 | $62,000 | 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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Supplies | $2,000 | |
| Capital | Acqsition costs excluding NEPA | $943,560 |
| NEPA | $28,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $378,800 | |
| $1,352,360 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $1,352,360 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $1,352,360 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wood family | Easement on parcel A | $220,000 | in-kind |
| Wood family | Easement on south half of parcel D | $154,500 | in-kind |
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. What are the effects of fluctuations of flow caused the operation of Bonneville dam on the spawning habitat in question? Will the area stay watered? What is known about historical use of this area by chum? How many redds per year are counted there? Are fish holding there or spawning?What is the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Program to address problems that may be solvable with municipal zoning tools? The proposal would spend $860k for 12 acres, over $63k per acre. Is it correct that the agreement would allow buildings to remain or be built on 7.2 of the 11.8 acres? Why would payment of taxes be included in this project - wouldn't owners pay the taxes with the purchase money?
Comment:
M&E would be performed through other BPA funded chum projects. NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.Comment:
Not Fundable technically, but based on the conservation issues associated with chum restoration it may be a necessary project. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate the benefits of the proposed easements; that these easements would protect habitat and that the habitat is at risk, i.e. that acquisition of easements over these 12 acres would solve the problem of human interference from dogs, boats, runoff from impervious surfaces from neighboring sites and that the chum population is threatened by potential development. Preliminary study of the relationship of this site to chum salmon habitat, e.g. of river flow and seepage, would resolve uncertainty about this costly project (seepage and water levels will likely be adequate for developing embryos but it's uncertain what would happen during emergence: if the gravel is porous enough the fry may move horizontally to stay immersed but this is apparently unknown; if the redds are exposed and the fry move to the surface then predation and surface traffic would reduce survivals). Preliminary study to assess the role of zoning to protect the spawning site would address ISRP's further uncertainty about the appropriate use of purchased easements to protect habitat (in light of the recent Supreme Court finding about "takings", there may be more opportunity for zoning approaches to protection than previously thought).Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUProtecting this site will secure the only known functioning mainstem spawning habitat for the Bonneville chum population outside of the Ives Island area.
Comments
This is a time-limited opportunity to protect habitat for the largest known mainstem spawning population of chum salmon outside the Ives Island area. Given risk of reduced habitat quantity/quality at Ives Island during low water years, this project is an important mitigation measure.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Concur with ISRP's technical comments. The proposal does not adequately address significance of this spawning site or the need to preserve the locations specified in the proposal for chum salmon recovery.Comment: