Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Innovative Technologies for Mapping Large Woody Debris and Assessing Fish Distribution |
| Proposal ID | 34028 |
| Organization | Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory (Battelle) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dana Woodruff |
| Mailing address | Battelle MSL, 1529 West Sequim Bay Rd. Sequim, WA 98382 |
| Phone / email | 3606813608 / dana.woodruff@pnl.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ron Thom, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Estuary / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | Evaluate side scan sonar as mapping tool for subtidal large woody debris (LWD) and develop protocals for its use. Evaluate the DIDSON acoustic camera for assessing fish distribution in relation to LWD. |
| Target species | Chinook and other species of interest utilizing Large Woody Debris |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.2065 |
-123.6265 |
Cathlamet Bay area, specific sites selected in planning workshop |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Develop field plan and engage partner involvement |
a. Conduct planning workshop |
2 |
$11,151 |
|
| 1. |
b. Develop sampling plan |
1 |
$9,367 |
|
| 2. Conduct field study for sonar mapping of LWD |
a. Mobilize and test side scan equipment |
1 |
$12,246 |
|
| 2. |
b. Conduct pilot scale mapping of LWD in Lower Columbia estuary |
5 |
$35,192 |
|
| 3. Conduct field study to assess fish distribution in relation to LWD |
a. Assess feasibility of DIDSON acoustic camera for determining fish distribution |
5 |
$41,270 |
|
| 3. |
b. Independent verification of fish abundance and species identification |
5 |
$21,866 |
|
| 4. Assess utility of side-scan sonar and DIDSON camera, and develop protocols for broader use in the estuary |
a. Develop LWD classifications |
1 |
$8,815 |
|
| 4. |
b. Merge subtidal maps with upland habitat classification maps |
1 |
$4,429 |
|
| 4. |
c. Develop mapping protocol based on pilot project data |
2 |
$28,022 |
Yes |
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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 0.67 Man Years |
$46,647 |
| Fringe |
|
$12,220 |
| Supplies |
|
$8,358 |
| Travel |
|
$12,211 |
| Indirect |
USDOE/DCAA APPROVED INDIRECTS |
$70,613 |
| Capital |
NA |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: NA |
$0 |
| NEPA |
NA |
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$6,640 |
| Other |
FEE |
$15,669 |
| $172,358 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $172,358 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $172,358 |
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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 24, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. Although innovative, the proposal is technically inadequate and the results would not likely be of significant benefit to fish and wildlife. The proposal definitely involves innovative equipment but the proposal did not really address any of the concerns (i.e., shallow water habitats and fish species identification) noted in the ISRP comments in the Columbia Estuary provincial review of proposal 30014, Map Subtidal Large Woody Debris and Other Habitat Features in Relation to Fish Distribution in the Lower Columbia River Estuary(www.cbfwa.org/files/province/estuary/projects/30014.htm).
The project does not link its technique testing and survey protocols well to specific questions about how juvenile salmonids use the estuary and what critical things we need to know in those habitats. The project focuses primarily on technique testing. While the purpose of the Innovative Solicitation is to bring new ideas and test new applications of techniques to Columbia River Basin salmon issues, this proposal seems like it needs more background work showing that the techniques can adequately assess habitat and fish (including IDs) accurately (or within acceptable limits). As it is, the proposal has two major uncertainties: one, whether the techniques can adequately assess habitats and identify juvenile salmonids and species; and two, how these data will provide something specifically useful about estuary habitats that we currently do not have (our lack of knowledge on subtidal LWD, notwithstanding). A far more direct means to examine this habitat would be to construct study sites and monitor fish use rather than passively sample habitats with advanced electronics as proposed here. There is no study design established, so we cannot assess procedures, methods, etc.
Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Jun 28, 2002
Comment:
The side scan sonar has had very important application in other nearshore marine environments, notably eelgrass and the significant management issues related to it. Large woody debris has been demonstrated to be important to salmonids. Side scan sonar will readily detect large woody debris. This proposal will use the technique to characterize this habitat feature in the estuarine environment.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Research. Indirect benefit through habitat survey and mapping. Could effect restoration strategies at some later time.
Comments
This seems to be more a test of technology than an innovative application of technology to Columbia Basin salmonid issues. Not consistent with Action 158 unless they develop a more cogent fish-related hypothesis that needs to be and will be tested by the proposed innovative approach.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Research. Indirect benefit through habitat survey and mapping. Could effect restoration strategies at some later time.Comments
This seems to be more a test of technology than an innovative application of technology to Columbia Basin salmonid issues. Not consistent with Action 158 unless they develop a more cogent fish-related hypothesis that needs to be and will be tested by the proposed innovative approach.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No