FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308200

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

NA

Reason for change in scope

NA

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The project emphasizes the need for understanding and dialogue but does not presume that the FCRPS would immediately be modified to meet only 'habitat opportunity' needs of the fish. The intent of the program is clearly to examine if fish needs can be incorporated into the water management planning cycle, and to explore how modifications of flow could benefit salmon while remaining within the limits imposed by other requirements. Further, if agreements could not be reached on how to respond to specific scenarios, then the models and sampling programs developed provide an ideal opportunity to design a truly adaptive management approach to understanding the "integration of flow management with the needs of salmonids in the lower Columbia River, estuary, and plume environments."

The technical background in this proposal is thorough and reasonable but we must still acknowledge that the importance of the plume environment to salmon survival remains unquantified or tested. With the current developments in the micro-tags and extensive studies in the lower river, estuary, and plume, we may have answers to these questions in the near future. Consequently, and after further consideration of this proposal, the ISRP supports our recommendation presented June 7, 2002 (below).

However, we believe there is an obvious need to initiate dialogue with the FCRPS managers so that an understanding of the proposed research and process is begun. If FCRPS managers are not prepared to consider possible alterations in flow plans or how to respond to different climate conditions or random opportunities (annual deviations in weather), then there are a number of extensive programs that may not need to be funded at all. The costs and benefits of all recovery opportunities need to be considered, none should be excluded particularly given the investment made in science within the Columbia River basin.

The proposal still could benefit from a more detailed description of the use of management science to articulate management scenarios. How will managers' expectations and response to uncertainty be investigated? For example, the proposal includes some statements about different languages and time horizons among managers, researchers, and policymakers. This is a very general statement that will apply to varying degrees within the FCRPS. It would be helpful to be more explicit about its particular application within the FCRPS, how large a problem it is, and potential remedies. The proposal describes the general problem as if it is a complete lack of understanding by one entity of all other entities.

Since the proponents have comments on the ISRP recommendations very recently, they may not have further response to these comments. The ISRP is providing for a response to our comments and those of the Action Agency/NMFS RME group if they chose to.

Past ISRP Review Comments:

June 7, 2002 Province Review - 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.

CBFWA Review Comments:

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.

Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:

HYDRO SUBGROUP -- This proposal establishes the need to link FCRPS river management to plume dynamics and productivity and ultimately salmon survival. Clearly there is a need to understand the contribution of early ocean conditions to salmon survival. The additional premise that the FCRPS might be managed to improve those conditions is less obvious. The river system is already being managed for multiple purposes; flood control, hydropower, irrigation, recreation and optimization of inriver smolt survival. To suggest that the system can be substantively altered further would require considerable reprioritization of existing river uses. This is not to diminish the importance of studying and understanding plume dynamics, but to be realistic with respect to expectations regarding the flexibility of the FCRPS.

OCEAN AND ESTUARY SUBGROUP -- Action items addressed - 158, 194; 161, 187,196. Doesn't clearly address all the RPAs proposed by authors. Focus is on physical aspects of estuary and plume. Compliments projects 199801400 and 30001 (estuary province numbers), so the project will be linked to understanding biological aspects of the estuary. This project is complete enough for current funding.

ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:

See ISRP preliminary comments above.

Comment:

Comment:

Previous reviews by the ISRP in the Lower Columbia/Estuary province had primarily focused on the objectives related to interaction with policy makers on operation of the FCRPS, which is actually a relative minor component of the full project. In project 35025, 85% of the budget is for environmental monitoring (remote sensing) and development of their concept of "habitat opportunity" as a means to assess the suitability of the plume to salmon. The remote sensing component of project 35025 (allowing analyses of parameters not included in the Plume proposal) is an important component of the set of projects in Estuary and Plume. Two other considerations are notable: the development of remote sensing (in coordination with CORIE) and numerical models may reduce long-term costs of oceanographic surveys (i.e., in the Plume proposal), and these investigators may provide large returns through other funding agencies.

The remaining 15% of the costs associated with this proposal is directed to the Project Management Board and interactions with the FCRPS. Proceeding with the above data aspects and beginning dialogue with the FCRPS should proceed so that when analyses of flow and plume issues are complete, the FCRPS is familiar with the issue and have an informed basis for response. A strength of this project is its emphasis on the eventual application and implementation of project results in management actions. The management science approach to laying out alternative scenarios for FCRPS managers will probably be quite useful in helping to articulate opportunity costs of particular river management strategies and to distinguish low-cost from high-cost management actions. It should enable a systematic assessment of tradeoffs.

This proposal makes a persuasive case for the integration of flow management with the needs of salmonids in the lower Columbia River, estuary, and plume environments. Dr. Jay has assembled a strong research group and has obviously tried to more clearly enunciate the value of this project to Columbia River salmonids and impacts of future climate scenarios. The RME comments strengthen our support and the obvious need for mutual consideration of flow and fish.

The purpose of this program (section 9, page 24, Tasks and Methods) is "to optimize the interactions of the FCRPS with juvenile salmonids in the lower-estuary and plume." The technical background in this proposal is thorough and reasonable but we must still acknowledge that the importance of the plume environment to salmon survival remains unquantified or tested. With the current developments in the micro-tags and extensive studies in the lower river, estuary, and plume, we may have answers to these questions in the near future. Therefore, in considering this proposal, it is important to note that the proposal emphasizes the need for understanding and dialogue with hydro-system managers, but does not presume that the FCRPS would immediately be modified to meet the 'habitat opportunity' needs of the fish. The intent of the program is clearly to examine if fish needs can be incorporated into the water management planning cycle, and to explore how modifications of flow could benefit salmon while remaining within the limits imposed by other requirements. Further, if agreements could not be reached on how to respond to specific scenarios, then the models and sampling programs developed in this project provide an ideal opportunity to design a truly adaptive management approach to understanding the "integration of flow management with the needs of salmonids in the lower Columbia River, estuary, and plume environments."

The ISRP believe there is an obvious need to initiate dialogue with the FCRPS managers so that an understanding of the proposed research and process is begun. If FCRPS managers are not prepared to consider possible alterations in flow plans or how to respond to different climate conditions or annual deviations in weather, then there are a number of extensive programs that may not need to be funded at all. The costs and benefits of all recovery opportunities need to be considered, none should be excluded particularly given the investment made in science within the Columbia River Basin.

Two points for clarification remain after the response. The ISRP is not certain that the definition and analysis of "habitat opportunity" will be addressed in areas upstream of the estuary to Bonneville Dam. If this was not the intention, then it must be integrated into project 35025. Further, the final definition of "habitat opportunity" continues to need clarification and we request that these investigators maintain communication with Basin agencies on this issue.

Comment:

Comments
Directly addresses RPA 194. This is essentially a physical oceanographic modeling project.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
yes

Comment:

Comments: