FY 2000 proposal 20013
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 |
|---|---|
| 20013 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20013 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Unobstructed Fish Passage to Duncan Creek |
| Proposal ID | 20013 |
| Organization | Skamania Landing Owners Association (SLOA) (SLOA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Andrew Jansky |
| Mailing address | 111 S.W. 5th Ave. Suite 2500 Portland, OR 97204-3628 |
| Phone / email | 5032273251 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| Short description | Restore unobstructed fish passage to Duncan Creek from the Columbia River through creation of an open concrete fish flume at the mouth of a dam co-managed by the Skamania Landing Owners Association and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. |
| Target species | Chum, Coho, Steelhead and Sea-run Cutthroat |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 2000 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 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | In-Kind and Covered by SLOA | $0 |
| Fringe | NA | $0 |
| Supplies | Materials and construction costs for fishway, mitigation and portions of dam repairs. | $190,000 |
| Operating | To be performed by SLOA/WDFW | $0 |
| Capital | Land Owned by SLOA | $0 |
| NEPA | Completed | $0 |
| Construction | Covered by SLOA | $0 |
| Travel | NA | $0 |
| Indirect | Covered by SLOA | $0 |
| Other | NA | $0 |
| $190,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $190,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $190,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| SLOA | Dam repair; grant and project adminstration/preparation; Construction contingencies and services; permits; and preliminary engineering costs. | $195,840 | unknown |
| WDFW | Fishway design; technical assistance; project oversight. | $10,000 | unknown |
| BPA | Fish flume final design costs, materials and constuction. | $190,000 | unknown |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fund for one year as proposed.
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year as proposed.Comments: The proposal includes a commendable cost-sharing arrangement, and appears promising as a benefit to chum salmon, coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat in the lower Columbia River. The proposal excels in outlining the historical importance of Duncan Creek to chum salmon and other nearby efforts that would complement this project. The proposal presents an innovative approach focusing on natural restoration of salmonids. The study may be useful to the region as a test of the natural resiliency of depressed stocks when production constraints are removed. Reviewers caution that chum salmon should not be stocked, however, until Washington Department of Fish and Game evaluate chum salmon stocks and develop a plan for establishment of a wild chum salmon population.
The project needs a more clearly defined protocol for monitoring spawning activity and reporting of results (approved by WDFW). Authors should include some estimate of anticipated results. They should also discuss habitat criteria more explicitly (what other conditions are necessary in the Duncan Creek watershed to support anadromous fish?) and explain plans to evaluate results beyond the fact that spawning surveys are to be conducted annually.
Specific questions and comments that should also be addressed are: There is no evidence of a watershed assessment plan. From what source will the stock for chum salmon come? Is spawning habitat the only limiting factor for chum? And is the estuary adequate to support juvenile chum? The cost-sharing budget figure (Page 4) appears to be incorrect.
Comment:
Comment:
Do they need all that they are requesting?? Ought to be able to complete for $200,000. They have already received at least one grant. Some of the stated costs may be related to needed dam maintenance. Preferred alternative is to remove the dam on Duncan Cr. Homeowners built the dam, now they are asking for funds to correct the problem created. Concern with limited expertise for conducting M & E. #1-Demonstrated support, but proposal overstates its case on some points. Proposal would be better if coordinated more closely with WDFW. #2-WDFW work priorities only. #3- This document lists Chum and its needs. #6-Assuming WDFW will pick up O&M. #8-WDFW work priorities are not based on WSA. #8-Did not state relation to WDFW M&E. #9-Dam removal would foster "normative." #10-Drawdown for 6 months will promote "connectivity" for Chum. #12&13-Proposal is silent. #14-Status quo if not done.Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
What is the condition of the habitat above the diversion structure? Is it currently good enough to support fish?Comment:
Rank Comments: Although this project is primarily of site specific value, it would test low cost restoration approaches that could have systemwide significance. If successful, there would be significant benefits to chum salmon and other anadromous species using this Lower Columbia Basin creek.Comment:
Although this project is primarily of site specific value, it would test low cost restoration approaches that could have systemwide significance. If successful, there would be significant benefits to chum salmon and other anadromous species using this Lower Columbia Basin creek.Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];