FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 200300700

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
30015 Narrative	Narrative
30015 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
30015 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	Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring and Data Management
Proposal ID	200300700
Organization	Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (LCREP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Debrah Marriott
Mailing address	811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 120 Portland, OR. 97204
Phone / email	5032261565 / marriott.debrah@lcrep.org
Manager authorizing this project	Debrah Marriott, Director
Review cycle	Columbia Estuary
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary
Short description	Develop protocols, procedures, and indicators for measuring habitat condition, assesss exposure levels to toxic contaminants, develop ecosystem restoration information center for housing and accessing data specific to lower Columbia River and estuary.
Target species	All 12 listed salmonid species as well as other organisms dependent on the lower Columbia River and esturine ecosystem

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Project includes Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary subbasin from Bonneville Dam to the mouth
46.23	-123.5	Columbia River Estuary

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
RPA 161
RPA 163
RPA 198

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
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.
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.
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.
BPA	Action 163	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS, in conjunction with the Habitat Coordination Team, will develop a compliance monitoring program for inclusion in the first 1- and 5-year plans.
BPA	Action 198	NMFS	The Action Agencies, in coordination with NMFS, USFWS, and other Federal agencies, NWPPC, states, and Tribes, shall develop a common data management system for fish populations, water quality, and habitat data.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1997	Establishment of Estuary Partnership Science Work Group
1999	Development of long term aquatic ecosystem monitoring strategy for the lower Columbia River and estuary
1999	Development of an information management strategy for the lower Columbia River and estuary
2001	Completion of a highly detailed set of GIS maps depicting habitat type for the lower river from Bonneville Dam to the mouth
2001	Revision of the Estuary Partnership's Management Plan to incorporate the salmon recovery recommendations of the BiOp and All H paper
2001	Co Sponsor of Habitat Workshop to identify criteria for selecting restoration projects
2001	Developed Subbasin Summary for Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
0	None in subbasin

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Develop habitat monitoring protocols	a. develop draft protocols	1 FY	$200,000	Yes
2. Implement toxics monitoring	a. develop plan for collecting baseline toxics data	.3 FY	$30,000	Yes
	c. develop plan for sampling problem areas	.3 FY	$30,000	Yes
3. Develop environmental information system	a. assemble database development staff	.5 FY	$112,000
	b. develop data agreements	2 FY	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
3. b. Devleop data agreements, compatible data protocols and standards	2004	2004	$0

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
3. Develop Environmenal Informtion Center	c. begin building prototype system	.3 FY	$100,000	Yes
		.	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Task b. Implement pilot program to test habitat protocols: identify test sites, conduct field survey, develop sampling plan and implement one year pilot study	2004	2005	$200,000
1. Task c. Based on results of pilot, reference sites and project evaluation sites will be identified and the protocols tested over two year period	2005	2007	$450,000
1. Task d. Evaluate results and make recommendations	2007	2007	$50,000
2. Task b. . Implement 3 year toxics monitoring program to identify possible trends	2004	2007	$900,000
2. Task d: 1 year toxics monitoring program and specific problem sites	2004	2005	$250,000
2. Task e: Evaluate results and make recommendations	2007	2007	$100,000
3. Task a. Ongoing office rental	2004	2007	$96,000
3. Task c. Develop and test prototype data system	2004	2006	$600,000
3. Task d. Evaluate prototype and modify	2007	2007	$200,000

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$1,024,000	$849,000	$549,000	$374,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
.			$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Estimated cost
1. Implement long term habitat monitoring program	2008	$0
2. Impement long term toxics monitoring program	2008	$0
3. Implement ERIC	2008	$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	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
Personnel	FTE: .6	$52,000
Fringe		$20,000
Supplies		$2,000
Travel		$2,000
Indirect		$24,000
Capital	office and equipment	$112,000
Subcontractor	60,000	$260,000
		$472,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$472,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$472,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership	25. FTE/yr @ 4ys	$100,000	cash
in kind services from partners 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. Is the Washington state data structure not appropriate for the estuary? How does this tie into NMFS work in the estuary? Is this consistent with protocols developed through SSHIAP? Is this a counterpart to StreamNet? How does this tie with the Council and NMFS discussion on creating a regional data management system? What does Washington Department of Ecology have and plan for toxic monitoring? What is the agency commitment to use this as a data warehouse?

Why is this so expensive?

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Proposed work will focus on the mainstem, an area where management activities are absent. Efforts under this project should be well coordinated with other Basinwide data management efforts. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

The response was adequate and the project has broad regional support. In concept, the project could be important and the ISRP agrees that the lower mainstem and estuary merit a separate monitoring program and database, but the database must be tied into the existing WDFW and ODFW systems. However, the review committee was bothered by the continued vagueness of the budget values and generalities of comments. For example, what data system is proposed, where will it be located, how much monitoring will be conducted, where will samples be processed and at what costs? All of these issues need to be more fully developed before an assessment can be made about the project value. This is a large program but the review committee cannot really determine what the funds will provide and whether the budget has any real basis. Will the actual cost really be 2-3x this estimate?

If the project is supported then the ISRP recommends that the Council at least require a more comprehensive description of the monitoring plan and components of the database, and how it would be annually monitored. This could be an expensive project. Rather than the proponents answering that "costs mount quickly" to our question, the proponents must lay out the various cost components with a justification for each. Therefore, we also recommend such budget clarification must be provided before funding.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect. Project products can be used in the conservation /restoration of salmonid habitats to potentially increase survival.

Comments
This project supports the RM&E goals of the Biop. It forms basis of long-term research and monitoring program that compliments proposals 3000, 199801400, and 30002. The proposal fills a critical gap for comprehensive habitat monitoring and data management in the Lower Columbia River and estuary. Since data base development is critical for both the lower river and the basin, this effort should also be coordinated with other efforts in the basin to develop a comprehensive plan. 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 proposal addresses M&E specific to the estuary and is the only proposal that addresses RPA 198; support funding and negotiate SOW that addresses potential overlap and budget issues; proposal submitted under Systemwide solicitation as well.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Columbia Estuary Issue 3: Columbia Estuary Assessment and Monitoring Projects Effectiveness Monitoring of Chinook Estuary (Project 30006); Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring and Data Management (Project 30015)

Council Recommendation: Proposed by Sea Resources, project 30006 would monitor and evaluate changes in habitat attributes and juvenile salmonid use before and after the Chinook River estuary restoration project. The project seeks no implementation funding, merely funding for monitoring and evaluation. Washington's Salmon Recovery Funding Board provided funds for actions to restore the Chinook estuary ($375,000). (See Lower Columbia and Estuary General Issue 4.)

The project was supported by CBFWA as a High Priority, the ISRP as fundable, NOAA Fisheries as an excellent example of a restoration project and Bonneville as supportive of funding to remove the tidegate and address several RPAs. The Council recommends funding this project and believes project 30006 is an excellent opportunity to leverage outside program funding for relatively little cost.

Project 30015 proposed by LCREP would develop protocols, procedures, and indicators for measuring habitat condition, assess exposure levels to toxic contaminants, develop ecosystem restoration information center for housing and accessing data specific to lower Columbia River and estuary. Supported by CBFWA as High Priority, the ISRP expressed some concerns in its fundable recommendation. ISRP wanted the project's database development to tie in closely with existing WDFW and ODFW databases. They also raised concern about the budget and recommended the Council require a more comprehensive description of the monitoring plan and components of the database.

NOAA Fisheries supports the project and notes its ties to the plume study 199801400 and to the proposed plume study 30002. Bonneville also supported the project as responsive to RPA 198 (development of a common data management system), though they cautioned to negotiate a statement of work that avoided overlap with other projects.

Although the Council supports the monitoring effort of LCREP, we must condition that support. The Council recommends close coordination of this effort with the NOAA Fisheries/ NWPPC project for the Columbia Basin Cooperative Information System (CBCIS). Therefore, the Council does not support the development of a database for this project until that regional effort has had the opportunity to make its recommendations on a coordinated approach to database development. The Council would not support the funding of objective three in either the Planning and Design and Construction and Implementation portions of the budget for project 30015.

The Council also notes the costs of the project ramp-up sharply in Fiscal Year 2004, well beyond the 3.4% increase that has been used for project expansion in the provincial reviews. However, the costs appear justified, since the monitoring program implementation largely does not take place until Fiscal Year 2004. The Council supports the ISRP recommendation that it receive a more comprehensive description of the monitoring plan, to ISRP and Council satisfaction, prior to the initiation of those tasks.

Monies for both of 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 161, 198

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Contracts are expected to execute in middle of August. Lost position in budget cuts. Need to get going this year. Shifting the project one year, basically, likely to do first year of project in 2004. 2003 shifts.

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:
$800,000	$625,000	$625,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website