FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200310600

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
35057 Narrative	Narrative
35057 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
35057 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Habitat Condition and Restoration Potential of Columbia River Flood Plains: A Critical, Missing Element of Fisheries Recovery Science and Policy
Proposal ID	200310600
Organization	The University of Montana (UM)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. Jack A. Stanford
Mailing address	Flathead Lake Biological Station, The Univ. of Montana, 311 Bio Station Ln. Polson, MT 59860-9659
Phone / email	4069823301 / stanford@selway.umt.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Claire L. Carlson, Associate V.P. for Research
Review cycle	Mainstem/Systemwide
Province / Subbasin	Mainstem/Systemwide /
Short description	Restoration of alluvial floodplains is critical if fisheries are expected to flourish. We will identify all floodplains in the Columbia River Basin and assess ecological integrity relative to human disturbance.
Target species	Focused on floodplain ecology -- not a target species.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		Entire Columbia Basin (Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon and British Columbia/Alberta, Canada). Target of 20 flood plains throughout the Columbia Basin.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
180

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2002	Kamchatka Steelhead Project. In cooperation with Moscow State University, we have assessed the ecological integrity of salmon rivers in Kamchatka as a baseline for assessment of Columbia River flood plains (PIs: J. Stanford, B. Ellis).
2002	BOR Funded Studies on the Yakima River. Developed novel remote-sensing tools for quantifying habitat distribution, type, abundance and quality. Demonstrated that critical shallow water and off-channel habitats have been reduced 40-70%.
2002	BOR Funded Studies on the Snake. Developed a biologically based system of management for the upper Snake River Basin (PIs: R. Hauer, M. Lorang).
2001	NSF Funded Biocomplexity Grant ($2.6 million). Title: DYNAMIC CONTROLS ON EMERGENT PROPERTIES OF RIVER FLOOD PLAINS -- demonstrates that alluvial flood plains are regional centers of ecological organization (PIs: J. Stanford, R. Hauer, M. Lorang).
2000	US Army COE Funded Studies on the Upper Yellowstone River. Developed Army HydroGeoMorphic (HGM) functional assessment and cumulative impact analysis for the Yellowstone River (PI: R. Hauer).

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
20034	THE IMPACT OF FLOW REGULATION ON RIPARIAN COTTONWOOD ECOSYSTEMS (PIs: J. Braatne, B. Jamieson)	One compononent of our assessment of flood plains is to quantify how riparain systems have been impacted. Both Braatne and Jamieson are PI's on this proposal and will extend this type of assessment to all the flood plains identified in this project.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design 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 Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
Objective 1. Identify and characterize, basin-wide, the distribution of flood plains in the Columbia River and its subbasin rivers, throughout the river/stream network to include all 4th order rivers and larger.	Task a. Use spatially explicit algorithms within a GIS to identify and describe flood plains embedded in USGS DEM data to determine location and spatial dimension of aggraded floodplain reaches.	2	$100,000
Objective 1.	Task b. Combine Task a results with USGS digital orthoquads to further refine identification of floodplain reaches.	2	$100,000
Objective 2. Assess and rank the condition of ecological integrity, and evaluate restoration potential of the alluvial flood plains (20-24 selected sites) of the Columbia and Subbasin Rivers through a step-wise, spatially-hierarchical process.	Task a. Apply geomorphic data obtained through identification process, as well as existing hydrologic, dam site, thematic overlays and existing orthodigital and CIR images to provide a first order analysis of ecosystem function	4	$150,000
Objective 2.	Task b. Analysis of remotely-sensed data, floodplain-specific geomorphic data, floodplain-specific hydrologic data, channel and floodplain aquatic habitat classification and floodplain gallery forest and other vegetative habitat classification.	4	$550,000	Yes
Objective 3. Describe the elements of restoration that will be needed (e.g., flow re-regulation, levee removal) for each of the selected sites.	Task a. Analysis of remotely-sensed data, floodplain-specific geomorphic data, floodplain-specific hydrologic data, channel and floodplain aquatic habitat classification and floodplain gallery forest and other vegetative habitat classification.	4	$300,000	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
Objective 1. Identify and characterize, basin-wide, the distribution of flood plains in the Columbia River and its subbasin rivers, throughout the river/stream network to include all 4th order rivers and larger.	2004	2004	$100,000
Objective 2. Assess and rank the condition of ecological integrity, and evaluate restoration potential of the alluvial flood plains (20-24 selected sites) of the Columbia and Subbasin Rivers through a step-wise, spatially-hierarchical process.	2004	2006	$1,743,175
Objective 3. Describe the elements of restoration that will be needed (e.g., flow re-regulation, levee removal) for each of the selected sites.	2004	2006	$1,648,949

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$1,282,603	$1,479,494	$730,027

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance 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 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: 5.0	$286,759
Fringe		$90,477
Supplies		$31,690
Travel		$51,510
Indirect		$239,054
Capital		$188,000
NEPA		$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor	University of Idaho	$103,784
Subcontractor	BioQuest	$79,350
Other	Graduate Student Fee Waivers, Contracted Services for Flights and Analyses, Communications	$129,376
		$1,200,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$1,200,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$1,200,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-13)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

Generally fundable with high priority, but a response is needed on a few issues described below. This is a good long-term research project that should result in significant management actions over the next two or three decades to improve fish and wildlife habitat. The project is designed to catalog alluvial flood plains in the Columbia River Basin, assess ecological intactness of these flood plains, identify major changes in ecosystem structure of flood plains, and identify actions needed to restore, protect and sustain damaged flood plains to normative conditions. The scientific framework is consistent with river recovery theory so the results should help provide a basis for coordination of restoration activities.

A response should address how the economic, social, and regulatory factors related to existing floodplain development, or to the potential for changes in floodplain use, will be incorporated into the ranking system. These economic, property, and regulatory issues should be directly addressed during this investigation, ideally through bringing on another investigator trained in economics, or through a subcontract with an economist. The response should also include a monitoring and evaluation plan to allow determination of success of the project. A mechanism for an independent review of the resulting ranking of floodplains should be specified as part of the M&E plan.

The ISRP recommends that Council carefully review the budget during the contracting period.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

CBFWA is reluctant to proceed with a limited (predictive) model of habitat condition/restoration potential prior to a regionally accepted methodology to determine an ecologically based operational loss assessment. CBFWA recommends that the project investigators coordinate with the regional fish and wildlife managers and related project activities (e.g., Project Number 2002001100, 199705900, etc.) to better facilitate regional ecological based assessment efforts. *Criteria T8 - CBFWA is concerned about the statement in the proposal that all data collected for this project will be proprietary to the project sponsor.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

Fundable (qualified). Agree with CBFWA's Recommended Action ranking. This is a good long-term research project that should result in significant management actions over the next two or three decades to improve fish and wildlife habitat. The project is designed to catalog alluvial flood plains in the Columbia River Basin, assess ecological intactness of these flood plains, identify major changes in ecosystem structure of flood plains, and identify actions needed to restore, protect and sustain damaged flood plains to normative conditions. The scientific framework is consistent with river recovery theory so the results should help provide a basis for coordination of restoration activities.

The value of this approach is the demonstration of this technique in the prioritization of floodplain restoration projects. The prioritization should be based on biophysical properties. The social and economic segment of the project as proposed in the sponsor's response to ISRP preliminary review comments is inadequate and should not be funded. The review panel proposed in the sponsor's response to ISRP preliminary review comments is inadequate as a monitoring and evaluation program. Funding should be contingent on the development of a monitoring and evaluation plan. The budget should be reviewed carefully.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Indirect. Proposed project will identify all floodplains in the Columbia River Basin and assess ecological integrity relative to human disturbance.

Comments
The project is designed to catalog alluvial flood plains in the Columbia River Basin, assess how intact they are, identify major changes in their structure, and identify actions needed to restore, protect and sustain damaged flood plains to normative conditions. This would be a valuable research project but does not address a specific RPA.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund (Tier 3)

Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
3. Other projects not recommended by staff

Comments: