FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31007

Additional documents

TitleType
Map: Location of Tributary Streams in Portland Response Attachment
31007 Narrative Narrative
31007 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDistribution and seasonal habitat use of ESA-listed salmonid species in City of Portland tributary streams
Proposal ID31007
OrganizationCity of Portland, Endangered Species Act Program (Portland, OR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJim Middaugh
Mailing address1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 4100 Portland, OR 97201-5350
Phone / email5038237032 / jmiddaugh@ci.portland.or.us
Manager authorizing this projectJim Middaugh
Review cycleLower Columbia
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Willamette
Short descriptionDetermine the distribution and seasonal habitat use of listed salmonids in City of Portland watersheds. Use information to guide development of a recovery plan, determine necessary protective measures, and monitor effectiveness of protective measures.
Target speciesSteelhead, chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, sturgeon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.5242 -122.675 City of Portland
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
154
158
159
169

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2001 Identified, purchased and prepared sampling supplies
Developed sampling protocols
Identified sampling areas
Contacted landowners for permission to access waterways on their properties
Conducted presence/absence and 100 meter sampling in Miller, Saltzman, Balch, Stephens, Tryon, Johnson, Kelley and Crystal Springs creeks
Entered and verified data collected

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
1. Determine distribution and seasonal habitat use patters of ESA-listed salmonids and other species in Portland watersheds a. Conduct seasonal standardized electroshocking for fish in approximately 12 Portland watersheds 1 $50,000 Yes
b. Estimate abundance of listed salmonids in summer and calculate an Index of Biotic Integrity for each stream 1 $6,000 Yes
c. Determine seasonal habitat use patterns of listed salmonids in each stream 1 $6,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Determine distribution and seasonal habitat use patters of ESA-listed salmonids and other species in Portland watersheds 2003 2004 $62,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004
$62,000

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
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel $31,500
Fringe $15,000
Supplies Waders, rain gear, etc. $3,000
Travel Truck rental and milage $2,500
Indirect $10,000
Subcontractor All work subcontracted to ODFW $0
$62,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$62,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$62,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
City of Portland Aquatic habitat inventories in target streams $120,000 cash
Web site, publications, agency coordination, landowner contacts, etc $10,000 cash

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. The sponsors need to provide a better description of the reaches that will be sampled, their size, and location. What is the rationale for selecting the sampling reaches? Will the sampling design adequately determine the extent of utilization of the lower tributary reaches by juvenile salmon? How often will each reach be sampled in each season? What will be done with the information once it is collected? Will presence/absence and abundance be related to habitat conditions? A more thorough description of the habitat sampling design, methods, the kinds of data collected, and the scale of the data (i.e., valley segment scale, reach scale, channel unit scale, etc.) is needed. Will habitat be sampled concurrently with fish sampling or will the information from habitat sampling in 2001 be used? Strong justification is needed for relating habitat data collected in 2001 to fish abundance data collected in 2002, especially at the channel unit and microhabitat scale. Sampling (both fish and habitat) in fall, winter, and spring is essential to determine utilization by juvenile migrants. Although there are logistical difficulties and safety concerns involved with sampling streams in the fall, winter, and spring, as the proposal acknowledges, the ISRP is uncertain about the City's commitment to fall, winter, and spring sampling. Sampling in the fall (e.g., October), especially, should not be problem. A thorough discussion of how the data will be analyzed is needed. The method of estimating abundance will be based on correlations of abundance with surface area. How will the correlations be used to decide which method to employ to estimate abundance? Will correlations of abundance and sampling unit volume be examined? Why not estimate abundance in several different ways (habitat unit, area, volume)? What does an IBI in a highly disturbed habitat provide?
Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

There is an outstanding question of whether or not this project is a BPA mitigation responsibility relative to impacts of the hydrosystem.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable, this is technically sound and the response is thorough. The response is detailed and responsive to most questions including those on sampling design and data analysis. Although the point they make of not associating fish presence with habitat condition is somewhat confusing. Isn't this what you would want to do to assess likely success of habitat restoration? The description of data analysis is still not detailed, resting on references to calculating IBIs. The proposed IBI, although adequately described in the response, is not very useful in reviewers' opinion, especially in such highly disturbed environments. They need to re-consider this use.

The ISRP did not ask and the proposal still does not make clear to reviewers what effect protecting some small fragments of urban streams will have on the restoration of salmon to the basin. It's important to the city, in the name of preserving some natural stream functioning that's left, and the protection of listed stocks may require it, but, from the information provided, it does not appear to offer substantial restoration of salmon habitat or substantial restoration of stocks. However, for the amount requested, the project is likely worth the investment to support the city's interest in conservation and land management -- a policy issue and choice.


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Future benefit for planning and assessment leading to protection and restoration - direct benefits limited

Comments
General in nature and may be part of HCP/4d. Commitment to action or link to specific habitat protection/restoration limited. Potentially valuable information. Needs links to information management/distribution.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No


Recommendation:
D
Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Project may be more appropriately addressed by ODFW and the City of Portland under section 4D of the ESA and to address urban planning issues raised in the proposal. We also note that these stocks are not directly affected by FCRPS actions.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: