FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 30017
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 30017 Narrative | Narrative |
| 30017 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 30017 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Columbia River Tidewater assessment for Recovery Planning |
| Proposal ID | 30017 |
| Organization | University of Portland (UP) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Thomas W. H. Backman |
| Mailing address | 19948 South Leland Road Oregon City, OR 97045 |
| Phone / email | 5036579005 / TWHB@aol.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dr. Steven A. Kolmes |
| Review cycle | Columbia Estuary |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary |
| Short description | Characterize habitat/fish productivity relationships; identify factors that limit recovery, early actions for recovery; and research, monitoring, and evaluation needs |
| Target species | Lower Columbia Steelhead, Lower Columbia Chum, Lower Columbia Chinook, Upper Willamette Steelhead, and Upper Willamette Chinook |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Covers the mainstem Columbia and Willamette River to Willlamette Falls of the Lower Columbia and Willamette ESU's | ||
| 46.23 | -123.5 | Columbia River Estuary |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 1058 |
| Action 158 |
| Action 159 |
| Action 160 |
| Action 161 |
| Action 162 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 159 | NMFS | BPA and the Corps, working with LCREP and NMFS, shall develop a plan addressing the habitat needs of salmon and steelhead in the estuary. |
| NMFS | Action 162 | NMFS | During 2000, BPA, working with NMFS, shall continue to develop a conceptual model of the relationship between estuarine conditions and salmon population structure and resilience. The model will highlight the relationship among hydropower, water management, estuarine conditions, and fish response. The work will enable the agencies to identify information gaps that have to be addressed to develop recommendations for FCRPS management and operations. |
| BPA | Action 158 | NMFS | During 2001, the Corps and BPA shall seek funding and develop an action plan to rapidly inventory estuarine habitat, model physical and biological features of the historical lower river and estuary, identify limiting biological and physical factors in the estuary, identify impacts of the FCRPS system on habitat and listed salmon in the estuary relative to other factors, and develop criteria for estuarine habitat restoration. |
| BPA | Action 161 | NMFS | Between 2001 and 2010, the Corps and BPA shall fund a monitoring and research program acceptable to NMFS and closely coordinated with the LCREP monitoring and research efforts (Management Plan Action 28) to address the estuary objectives of this biological opinion. |
| BPA | Action 162 | NMFS | During 2000, BPA, working with NMFS, shall continue to develop a conceptual model of the relationship between estuarine conditions and salmon population structure and resilience. The model will highlight the relationship among hydropower, water management, estuarine conditions, and fish response. The work will enable the agencies to identify information gaps that have to be addressed to develop recommendations for FCRPS management and operations. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Willamette-Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team formed |
| 2001 | WLC-TRT and NMFS identify this as a high priority need |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Collect, analyze and synthesize existing available data | a. Describe historical condition | 1 | $55,792 | |
| 1. | b. Channel habitat typing | 1 | $0 | |
| 1. | c. Characterize tidal-fluvial conditions | 1 | $0 | |
| 2. Determine salmon-life-stage dependence on habitat types. | a. Describe the relationship of various habitat types to salmon needs. | 1 | $31,429 | |
| 3. Develop habitat perfomance standard to guide recovery planning and delisting criteria. | a. Describe the ecological processes and functions that result in supportive habitat | 1 | $32,251 | |
| 3. | b. Propose guidelines for recovery planning and delisting guidelines. | 1 | $0 | |
| 4. Describe Research, Monitoring and Evaluation needs. | a. Describe critical uncertainties. | 1 | $17,866 | |
| 4. | b. Propose R, M and E guidelines to reduce critical uncertainties. | 1 | $0 |
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 |
|---|
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 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 | $86,870 | |
| Fringe | $34,748 | |
| Supplies | $3,025 | |
| Travel | $1,550 | |
| Indirect | $11,145 | |
| $137,338 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $137,338 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $137,338 |
| 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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal is to characterize productivity relationships between habitat and fish for steelhead, chum, Chinook (5 listed ESUs) in the lower Columbia and upper Willamette. The project would also identify factors limiting recovery, identify needed actions and research.The proposal presents an extensive rationale in which it acknowledges other related projects that may produce similar or overlapping information, but isn't specific as to how this project's focus is distinct from others. It states that coordination with other projects will take place once this project is funded. Does this project duplicate ongoing efforts? For example, has existing habitat information already been summarized in the subbasin summary? The response should discuss potential overlap between this proposal and proposal #30001 (NMFS) that will evaluate the role of river flow on habitat opportunities and food web structure for juvenile salmon.
Task 1.c.: Are watershed assessments necessary or have they already been completed? Other tasks raise similar questions. The overall question raised by this proposal is whether is identifies needed research or duplicates ongoing research or existing knowledge.
What is the interpretation of "historical" in this context? Does this mean at different points in time? Before fishery exploitation? Before European-American exploitation? What is the relevance of historical benchmark conditions when irreversible changes have occurred?
At least three in-text citations are not included in the list of references.
Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Not fundable. This proposal is to characterize productivity relationships between habitat and fish for steelhead, chum, Chinook (5 listed ESUs) in the lower Columbia and upper Willamette. The project would also identify factors limiting recovery, identify needed actions and research.The response does not add further support for the project, nor does it directly address whether it duplicates ongoing efforts of other projects. More importantly, it isn't clear from the response that the proposers know which type of information is available and which is not. Additionally, the response on historical reconstructions as experimental controls doesn't make sense for recovery objectives where recovery levels are frequently much less than virgin population sizes. The response, like the proposal, sounds very tentative.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect. Project would characterize salmon habitat in the tidal-fluvial reach of the Columbia River to support recovery planning.
Comments
Project would fund product development of LCR TRT.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Duplicative of LCREP and NMFS proposalsComment: