FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 30018

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSalmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the Columbia Estuary
Proposal ID30018
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTom Nickelson
Mailing address28655 Highway 34 Corvallis, OR 97333
Phone / email5417574263 / nickelsont@fsl.orst.edu
Manager authorizing this projectEd Bowles, ODFW Fish Division Head
Review cycleColumbia Estuary
Province / SubbasinColumbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary
Short descriptionImplement fish population and habitat monitoring (EMAP) in the Oregon portion of the Columbia Estuary
Target speciesall anadromous and resident salmonids
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Columbia Estuary Subbasin
46.23 -123.5 Columbia River Estuary
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
150
174
184
180

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 180 NMFS The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003.
BPA Action 180 NMFS The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Implement monitoring of the status and trends in anadromous and resident salmonid populations and their habitats a.Habitat and Juvenile Salmonid Monitoring ongoing $116,128
1. b. Steelhead Spawner Monitoring ongoing $111,819
1. c. Coho Spawner Monitoring ongoing $300,966
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Implement monitoring of the status and trends in anadromous and resident salmonid populations and their habitats 2003 2006 $2,393,665
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$555,359$583,126$612,283$642,897

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 8.9 $235,507
Fringe OPE varies by position (41.3%) $97,154
Supplies $29,792
Travel $62,376
Indirect 24.5% $104,084
NEPA none $0
$528,913
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$528,913
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$528,913
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
ODFW Support from existing staff expertise on implementating EMAP sampling in the Columbia Estuary $25,000 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
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed for this and the related proposal (#31034), both are technically inadequate proposals. Both proposals request over $500,000 annual for important monitoring programs but these proposals are inadequate for review. Both proposals will apply the ODF&W EMAP procedures for monitoring and evaluation as has been presented in several previous Provincial reviews. While the ISRP has recommended this process in other Provinces, these proposals lack detail and any project history concerning the development of this process. The discussion of sampling design, sampling methods, and data analysis is inadequate. Although the methods are broadly referenced in the proposal, the ISRP is not sufficiently familiar with the methods in the Oregon Plan and consequently they need to be adequately summarized in the proposal. The proposal itself must be a complete and stand alone document.

Each task should be associated with a more detailed summary of the methodology. For example, there are concerns about each task in Objective 1:

Task 1: Is any biological data collected on the juveniles enumerated? What is the basis of the sampling protocol? Why is abundance of coho identified separately from the other salmonids?

Task 2: Is any biological data collected during these steelhead monitoring programs? Population status will be indexed through cumulative redd counts and time between surveys is presumably set based on the visible "life expectancy" of redds. How was the frequency of surveys established, how variable is the life of a redd within a stream and between streams? Should the visible life of a redd be calibrated in each geographic area or is there data to support using a fixed period between Provinces?

Task 3: same comments as for Task 2, except replace coho stream life for steelhead redd life expectancy. More information on coho assessments was presented at the briefing but nothing is included in the proposal.

Related questions to those above include: How was the number of sites selected? How will EMAP be used to select the actual sites? Which rivers will be sampled? What will be the frequency of sampling? What are the methods for sampling habitat and juveniles? How will juvenile abundance be determined? How will the sampling enable detection of trends in distribution and abundance? Will the sampling be adequate to detect range expansion due to habitat recovery? What exactly do the precision estimates mean? How will hatchery and wild spawners be differentiated? When the fish are alive or as carcasses? How will the data be analyzed? In using the AUC technique, what value for stream life is used and why? Is stream life assumed to be constant? If so, why? Why are coastal cutthroat and chinook not included in the monitoring? Is the sampling intensity proposed in these provinces comparable to other provinces? Further, results of surveys in these provinces were presented at the briefings but were not included in the proposal.

Again, the ISRP does not expect the sponsors to present the full text for the monitoring methods taken directly from the Oregon Plan, but rather a concise summary that is sufficient to allow us to judge the scientific credibility of the work and its merit in relation to provincial and the basin recovery.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

The cost appears excessive. Could the budget be reduced? This level of effort should be well coordinated with other monitoring efforts throughout the Basin.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

If funded this proposal should be combined with project #31034 (Lower Columbia Province) in the contracting process. The costs for both projects would seem excessive for annual monitoring and sampling sites, and may have to be adjusted within an annual budget allotment. Assurances should be given that this will be closely coordinated with NMFS's work in the estuary.

While the response addressed most of the ISRP concerns, we continue to be uncertain about the assessment of expanding habitat use and the lack of biological sampling. If sites are selected at random then the coverage of habitats and the issue of assessing range expansion of the fish would be included in the sampling design. If not, then some level of monitoring for expansion should be considered. The issue of biological sampling should be re-considered by the proponents.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
A spatially balanced status monitoring program for Lower Columbia Tributary habitat, juvenile and adult salmonids.

Comments
This proposal proposes a very important monitoring effort that is vital to the management of the province's habitat and anadromous salmonids. Nothing like this program yet exists in this region. The proposal should be coordinated with proposal 31034 to reduce duplication of effort. This proposal has the full support of the NWFSC. This proposal is key to moving the basin forward in a uniform program of monitoring data collection.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Although this proposal addresses RPA 180, this RPA must be addressed Basin-wide; defer until development of RM&E plan for prioritizing research and await the results of pilot study in John Day Subbasin. Appears to be the same proposal as no. 31034 in the Lower Columbia Province.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: