Aquatic survey protocol comparison proposal 200700100

FY07-09 proposal 200700100

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Aquatic survey protocol comparison
Proposal ID	200700100
Organization	US Forest Service - National Headquarters
Short description	This project seeks to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and comparability of aquatic protocols used by different management and research organizations within the Pacific Northwest.
Information transfer	This information will be disseminated though peer and agency publications. Presentations will be given to professional societies and the funding agencies. Data will be available to those who request it.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Contacts

Contact	Organization	Email
Form submitter
Brett Roper	USDA Forest Service	broper@fs.fed.us
All assigned contacts
Bruce Crawford	Inter-Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation	brucec@iac.wa.gov
Al Doelker	Buearu of Land Managment	Al_Doelker@or.blm.gov
Scott Downie	CA Department of Fish and Game	SDownie@dfg.ca.gov
Jim Geiselman		jrgeiselman@bpa.gov
Phil Kaufmann	EPA	kaufmann.phil@epa.gov
Steve Lanigan	U.S. Forest Service	slanigan@fs.fed.us
Jim McKean	Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service	jmckean@fs.fed.us
Allen Pleus	Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission	apleus@nwifc.org
Brett Roper	USDA Forest Service	broper@fs.fed.us
Greg Sieglitz	Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board	greg.sieglitz@state.or.us

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Latitude	Longitude	Waterbody	Description

Section 3. Focal species

primary: All Anadromous Fish
secondary: Resident Fish

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding source	Related ID	Related title	Relationship
Other: PNAMP -- Aquatic Monitoring Protocols	001	Aquatic Protocol Comparision -- John Day Bason	The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership has been interested in and conducted studies which evaluate the comparability and utility of aquatic monitoring protocols within the Pacific Northwest. The two main questions which they have focused on are; 1) which aquatic protocol(s) are the best for specific aquatic attributes and 2) can relationships (crosswalks) be established among different protocols. This interest promulgated earlier efforts to compare aquatic protocols. These studies have been funded by the states of Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Bonneville Power Administration, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This proposal is to insure that on-going efforts comparing various aquatic protocols within the region continue.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectives	Full description	Associated subbasin plan	Strategy
Habitat conditions	Consistent, repeatable, and transferable aquatic surveys.	None	How repeatable are aquatic monitoring protocol? What are the relationships among the different common survey protocols?

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element name	Work element title	Description	Start date	End date	Est budget
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs	Evaluating commonly used aquatic monitoring protocols in the Pacific Northwest	To compare and contrast aquatic monitoring protocols used to evaluate habitat within the Columbia River Basin.	12/1/2007	9/30/2010	$1,350,000
Biological objectives			Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Item	Note	FY07	FY08	FY09
Personnel	This would have to be divided among the groups that participate.	$400,000	$400,000	$400,000
Overhead	For a funded coordinator.	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Totals		$450,000	$450,000	$450,000

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Total itemized budget:	$1,350,000
Total work element budget:	$1,350,000

Cost sharing

Funding source/org	Item or service provided	FY 07 est value ($)	FY 08 est value ($)	FY 09 est value ($)	Cash or in-kind?	Status
California	Field Crews	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	In-Kind	Under Development
EPA	Statistical/Logistical Assistance	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	In-Kind	Under Development
Forest Service	Compare Field to LiDAR	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	In-Kind	Under Development
Forest Service	Field Crews	$15,000	$15,000	$15,000	In-Kind	Under Development
Idaho	Field Crews	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	In-Kind	Under Development
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission	Field Crew	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	In-Kind	Under Development
Oregon	Field Crews	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	In-Kind	Under Development
Washington	Field Crews	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000	In-Kind	Under Development
Totals		$85,000	$85,000	$85,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $0
FY 2011 estimated budget: $0

Comments:

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget	FY08 budget	FY09 budget	Total budget	Type	Category	Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0	Expense	Basinwide	Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0		Basinwide

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The narrative portion for this proposal is missing so the proposal does not contain necessary justification. Note that the ISAB has reviewed this study design before; see ISAB 2005-1, www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2005-1.pdf. It's not clear whether the sponsors have addressed the ISAB comments.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable