FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 200304500

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
30002 Narrative	Narrative
30002 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
Influence of Wind Stress and Ambient Flow on a High Discharge River Plume	Narrative Attachment
30002 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids: Restoration of Lower-Estuary and Plume Habitats
Proposal ID	200304500
Organization	Oregon Health & Science University, OGI School of Science & Engineering (OHSU)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	David A. Jay, Associate Professor
Mailing address	Oregon Health & Science University, OGI School of Science & Engineering Beaverton, OR 97006-8921
Phone / email	2067481372 / djay@ese.ogi.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Antonio M. Baptista, ESE Department Head
Review cycle	Columbia Estuary
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary
Short description	Restore Columbia River estuary and plume juvenile salmonid habitats and optimize FCRPS impacts on the plume through improved understanding of estuary and plume physcial processes and definition of possible future management scenarios
Target species	All Columbia River salmonid stocks and ESUs

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.25	-124	Lower Columbia River Estuary
46.25	-124.17	Columbia River Plume
45	-124	Cental Oregon Coast
46.5	-124.17	SW Washington Coast

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
158
159
161
162
187
195
196
197
199

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 187	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within the annual planning and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies and analyses to evaluate relationships between ocean entry timing and SARs for transported and downstream migrants.
NMFS	Action 194	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within the annual planning and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies to develop a physical model of the lower Columbia River and plume. This model will characterize potential changes to estuarine habitat associated with modified hydrosystem flows and the effects of altered flows where they meet the California Current to form the Columbia River plume.
NMFS	Action 196	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within the annual planning and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies to develop an understanding of juvenile and adult salmon use of the Columbia River estuary. These studies support the actions to develop criteria for estuarine restoration (Action 158), restoration planning (Action 159), and implementation (Action 160) in Section 9.6.2.2.
NMFS/BPA	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/BPA	Action 161	NMFS	Between 2001 and 2010, the Corps and BPA shall fund a monitoring and research program acceptable to NMFS and closely coordinated with the LCREP monitoring and research efforts (Management Plan Action 28) to address the estuary objectives of this biological opinion.
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 161	NMFS	Between 2001 and 2010, the Corps and BPA shall fund a monitoring and research program acceptable to NMFS and closely coordinated with the LCREP monitoring and research efforts (Management Plan Action 28) to address the estuary objectives of this biological opinion.
BPA	Action 187	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within the annual planning and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies and analyses to evaluate relationships between ocean entry timing and SARs for transported and downstream migrants.
BPA	Action 195	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall investigate and partition the causes of mortality below Bonneville Dam after juvenile salmonid passage through the FCRPS.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
	NMFS Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume	This project will provide the physical and management science basis for future management related to impacts on the lower Columbia River Estuary and plume. The NMFS project will provide numerical simulations and evaluations of habitat opportunity.
	NMFS Estuary Habitat Project	This project will define the physical processes and habitat conditions of the lower estuary, and provide an interface between the NMFS Plume and Estuary projects

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

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
1. Define Estuary-Plume Response	a. Acquire/process remote sensing and vessel data	2	$216,304	Yes
	b. Analyze plume circulation properties	3	$71,945	Yes
	c. Analyze plume particulate properties	3	$34,192	Yes
2. Analyses of the FCRPS Management Context	a. Analyses of the FCRPS Management Context	3	$44,267	Yes
3. Define/Evaluate Habitat Opportunity and Scenarios	a. Define habitat opportunity and management scenarios	2	$46,422	Yes
	b. Evaluate management scenarios	2	$0	Yes
	c. Liason with the Project Advisory Board and the OSS	3	$22,062	Yes
	d. Define strategy for future years	1	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Define Estuary-Plume Response	2004	2005	$411,293
2. Analyses of the FCRPS Management Context	2004	2005	$60,866
3. Define/Evaluate Habitat Opportunity and Scenarios	2004	2005	$298,974

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$355,705	$415,428

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: Various	$54,684
Fringe	Various rates, based on salary and FTE	$19,934
Supplies	Consistent with historical costing	$6,000
Travel	Review meetings and conferences	$11,000
Indirect	64% MTDC on-campus and 26% MTDC off-campus, per negotiated DHHS rates	$99,674
Capital	SeaWIFS calibrator	$22,500
NEPA	N/A	$0
PIT tags	# of tags: N/A	$0
Subcontractor	OSU	$10,000
Subcontractor	NRL	$80,000
Subcontractor	Foreman	$10,000
Subcontractor	Pulwarty	$50,000
Other	Aircraft and Ship Time	$71,400
		$435,192

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$435,192
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$435,192
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 required for clarification of this proposal relative objectives and tasks in proposal #199801400 and the specific tasks recommended under this proposal. While the ISRP fully agrees that "the project assembles a group of leading coastal scientists", with the need to consult with management agencies, and the potential value of establishing a Project Advisory Board, we are concerned that the current knowledge level does not justify this level of effort at this time. However, as we have noted above, this may simply reflect our current understanding of how these activities fit together.

The objectives stated for this proposal were (Section 9):

"Objective 1: Define how the lower-estuary and plume interacted historically with coastal currents, how operation of the FCRPS has altered the lower-estuary and plume, and how climate change and the FCRPS will impact the system in coming decades.

Objective 2: With Action Agencies, define needs and opportunities for science-based input to operational FCRPS management practices, given uncertain climate and coastal circulation forecast.

Objective 3: With FCRPS managers, define management scenarios: a) that are based on physical understanding, b) that can be evaluated in terms of habitat opportunity and other constraints on the system, and c) whose implementation can lead to a qualitative improvement in survival of juvenile salmonids.

Innovative oceanographic methods, remote sensing, management science and analyses of numerical model results will be used to achieve the goals of the project, as it moves from research toward provision of definite strategies over the next 6 to 10 years. A Project Advisory Board (PAB) that includes Action Agency personnel, FCRPS managers and external scientists will be formed to help ensure productive application of the insights achieved. Tight cooperation with work carried out in the estuary and plume by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be facilitated by participation of PIs in this project as well as in two projects proposed by NMFS."

The majority of the scientific background and tasks, however, address Objective 1 that is very similar to objectives and tasks included in proposal #199801400. Objective 2 is limited to analysis of the use of climate information by FCRPS managers (page 25), and Objective 3 involves the development and analysis of management scenarios to improve salmon production in estuary and plume. (Note: Footnote 1, section 9b. limits the study area of this proposal to lower estuary seaward of Rm-5 and the plume, and surrounding coastal areas of central Oregon and southern Washington.)

Specific comments:

Section 9f, page 10. Figure 6. The symbols in Figure 6 are not printed correctly in the caption making interpretation of the figure impossible. The figure is the same in printed copies and on the CD.
Objective 1, tasks 1.a. and 1.b. It is not at all clear to the ISRP why these data collection and analysis tasks are not part of the Plume proposal (#199801400), and how these data would be integrated into the large analysis under that proposal. In meetings we were informed that the numerical modeling of the plume dynamics would be conducted under the Plume proposal but these analyses seem inconsistent with that understanding. (also see Section 9d.)
A critical uncertainty to us is the lack of definition of "habitat opportunity", a term used as a metric for salmon habitat suitability in the Plume proposal and this proposal. A useful clarification for both proposals would be how the investigators intend to define that metric and what types of parameters would be involved. A related concern would be how easily such a metric could be measured without extensive and costly surveys?
The ISRP is concerned that the term "Optimization" is misleading in that it implies a single recommendation and maximum production of salmonids. This Region has surely learned that this is not realistic and we do not believe that these proponents endorse such a simply "best" inference (their objectives do not use this term). If the Basin incorporates climate change and plume dynamics into their annual FCRPS management plans in order to improve salmon production that would be a significant contribution from this research (although the economic and social components of these management decisions should likely also be factored in).
If objectives 2 and 3 were to proceed without a functioning numerical model at this time, what activities would be undertaken and do the proponents still see a value in establishing the PAB and definition of management scenarios? Each scenario could take substantial time and involve numerous assumptions, how would the number of these scenarios be handled without developing into a huge list of contradictory predictions like some past modeling studies in the Basin have evolved into?
The indirect costs in the budget appear unreasonably high and need to be justified.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Project would provide information to managers regarding the effects of flow on % habitat available (I.e., what % of habitat would be lost/gained during different flows below Bonneville Dam). Project could lead to the development of management schemes. 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 (disagree with CBFWA ... to some extent), initially fund at a reduced amount and increase funding over 3 to 4 year period as information from the other projects increases and need for integration increases. The ISRP does agree that it is important to begin dialogue with the system managers on how to incorporate the lower river, estuary, and plume environments into their considerations.

It is difficult to argue with the statement that the ultimate goal of the plume and estuary studies are to link these to management of the water system (FCRPS) for the improved survival and production of salmonids in the Basin. Therefore, since we see nothing fundamentally wrong with this proposal's presentation, we recommend funding. However, we also believe that this proposal is a couple of years ahead of its useful time and that it could be deferred if funding limitations required. To prompt development of the integration of the lower river and estuary programs with FCRPS and system managers, we are recommending a revised approach to be developed by the contract managers and involving a phasing in of the proposal over the next few years.

Further, the ISRP continues to be concerned with the reference to "habitat opportunity" metrics and the very limited definition of what this means, and that the area defined for this proposal does not include the inner estuary or river up to Bonneville dam. The response continues to refer to the outer estuary but then other parts of the proposal refer more generally to the estuary proposal and FCRPS interest that clearly involves the river below Bonneville Dam and into the plume region. Finally, the response would have been strengthened with a clearer description of the use of management science to articulate management scenarios.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. In concert with proposal 30001 and 199801400, will lead to management scenarios to allow beneficial use of river flows conducive to power management as well as to juvenile salmon in the lower Columbia River, estuary, and plume.

Comments
The proposal develops management scenarios to provide alternatives to maximize habitat opportunity for juvenile salmon while fulfilling power generating needs. The proposal is complimentary research to proposals 30001 and 199801400 on the development of management scenarios. The proposal is complete and ready to implement. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A w/conditions

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

This should be funded as part of a comprehensive program and needs to coordinate with 30001, 30007, 30010 and 1998-014-00.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Columbia Estuary Issue 1: ESA Research Projects, Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume (Project 199801400); Holistic Habitat Opportunities and Food-Web Linkages of Juvenile Salmon (Project 30001); Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids (Project 30002); Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying Ocean Survival and Movements of Columbia River Salmon (Project 30007); Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (Project 30010)

Council Recommendation: These five proposals are all research proposals involving study of the estuary habitat, the Columbia River plume and the ocean habitats that Columbia River salmon traverse during their migration. The Council is recommending two of these proposals for funding in this provincial review, that two of the proposals be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration, and that one proposal not be funded at this time. Of the five research projects, only 199801400 is an ongoing effort. It has proposed a rather substantial expansion of its plume study. It received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and the ISRP gave it a fundable recommendation, noting that the project sponsors felt that tasks 4 and 5 could be deferred for 1-2 years if budget constraints affected funding. NOAA Fisheries supported this NOAA Fisheries sponsored research project. They identified the project addressing numerous RPAs, but most significantly RPAs 158 and 162. Bonneville supported the project, but noted that it should coordinate with the other four proposed research projects. Bonneville's comments on the other four proposals are similar to their comments on 199801400 and will only be addressed here.

The Council agrees with the ISRP, BPA and NOAA Fisheries that the project provides an important research effort, which could probe how the hydrosystem and its operation impacts the estuary and near-shore ocean and plume environment. The Council also supports the expansion of objectives 1,2 and 3 of the project believing that these expanded objects will address ESA concerns in a fashion that outweighs the Council's lower priority for expanded research projects. However, the Council agrees with the ISRP and the project sponsors that Objectives 4 and 5 could be deferred. The Council does not recommend funding those two objectives at this time. Funds for the base of this project and for the expansion of the ongoing objects would come from the base allocation for the provinces.

Project 30001 received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and a fundable recommendation from the ISRP. NOAA Fisheries supported the project, again unsurprising, noting that the project addressed RPAs 158 and 162. The Council supports funding the project as another important research opportunity to address ESA concerns that would outweigh the Council's lower priority on new research projects.

Funds for the new Project 30001 would come from the unallocated placeholder since funding this project would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces. Though given a High Priority designation from CBFWA and supported by the ISRP and NOAA Fisheries, the Council does not recommend funding project 30002 at this time. The Council's reasoning is based upon the ISRP comments on this project and upon budgetary constraints. ISRP stated that "since we see nothing fundamentally wrong with this proposal's presentation, we recommend funding. However, we also believe that this proposal is a couple of years ahead of its useful time and that it could be deferred if funding limitations required." [Emphasis added.] The Council believes that other projects that implement ESA actions and provide results in the time period of the current FCRPS Biological Opinion during this tight budget situation should outweigh implementation of this research proposal. Project 30002 could be better sequenced at a later time to take advantage of the information gained from the expansion of Project 199801400.

The Council finds that the other proposals, 30010 and 30007, should be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration. Project 30010 is clearly an ocean research proposal and does not fit within the geographic scope of the Lower Columbia and Estuary Provincial review. It is more appropriately considered in the Mainstem/Systemwide review along with other ocean research projects.

Project 30007 also involves ocean research, but has research elements for the plume and near shelf that could be considered under the Lower Columbia and Estuary review. Although given a Do Not Fund recommendation by CBFWA, the ISRP rated this project as fundable, but recommended funding at a reduced level from the proposal. Both NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville suggested moving the project to the Mainstem/Systemwide review, BPA noting that the project could coordinate with a similar NOAA Fisheries proposal on acoustic tracking. The Council agrees with these comments and would suggest reviewing the project in the Mainstem/Systemwide process.