FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 30018
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 |
|---|---|
| 30018 Narrative | Narrative |
| 30018 & 31034 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 30018 and 31034 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Memo from K. Weist (NPCC) to Council Members RE: Oregon Plan EMAP Presentation | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the Columbia Estuary |
| Proposal ID | 30018 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tom Nickelson |
| Mailing address | 28655 Highway 34 Corvallis, OR 97333 |
| Phone / email | 5417574263 / nickelsont@fsl.orst.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ed Bowles, ODFW Fish Division Head |
| Review cycle | Columbia Estuary |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary |
| Short description | Implement fish population and habitat monitoring (EMAP) in the Oregon portion of the Columbia Estuary |
| Target species | all anadromous and resident salmonids |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Columbia Estuary Subbasin | ||
| 46.23 | -123.5 | Columbia River Estuary |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 150 |
| 174 |
| 184 |
| 180 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
| BPA | Action 180 | NMFS | The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within regional prioritization and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the level of FCRPS funding to develop and implement a basinwide hierarchical monitoring program. This program shall be developed collaboratively with appropriate regional agencies and shall determine population and environmental status (including assessment of performance measures and standards) and allow ground-truthing of regional databases. A draft program including protocols for specific data to be collected, frequency of samples, and sampling sites shall be developed by September 2001. Implementation should begin no later than the spring of 2002 and will be fully implemented no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement monitoring of the status and trends in anadromous and resident salmonid populations and their habitats | a.Habitat and Juvenile Salmonid Monitoring | ongoing | $116,128 | |
| 1. | b. Steelhead Spawner Monitoring | ongoing | $111,819 | |
| 1. | c. Coho Spawner Monitoring | ongoing | $300,966 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Implement monitoring of the status and trends in anadromous and resident salmonid populations and their habitats | 2003 | 2006 | $2,393,665 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $555,359 | $583,126 | $612,283 | $642,897 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 8.9 | $235,507 |
| Fringe | OPE varies by position (41.3%) | $97,154 |
| Supplies | $29,792 | |
| Travel | $62,376 | |
| Indirect | 24.5% | $104,084 |
| NEPA | none | $0 |
| $528,913 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $528,913 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $528,913 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| ODFW | Support from existing staff expertise on implementating EMAP sampling in the Columbia Estuary | $25,000 | 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 for this and the related proposal (#31034), both are technically inadequate proposals. Both proposals request over $500,000 annual for important monitoring programs but these proposals are inadequate for review. Both proposals will apply the ODF&W EMAP procedures for monitoring and evaluation as has been presented in several previous Provincial reviews. While the ISRP has recommended this process in other Provinces, these proposals lack detail and any project history concerning the development of this process. The discussion of sampling design, sampling methods, and data analysis is inadequate. Although the methods are broadly referenced in the proposal, the ISRP is not sufficiently familiar with the methods in the Oregon Plan and consequently they need to be adequately summarized in the proposal. The proposal itself must be a complete and stand alone document.Each task should be associated with a more detailed summary of the methodology. For example, there are concerns about each task in Objective 1:
Task 1: Is any biological data collected on the juveniles enumerated? What is the basis of the sampling protocol? Why is abundance of coho identified separately from the other salmonids?
Task 2: Is any biological data collected during these steelhead monitoring programs? Population status will be indexed through cumulative redd counts and time between surveys is presumably set based on the visible "life expectancy" of redds. How was the frequency of surveys established, how variable is the life of a redd within a stream and between streams? Should the visible life of a redd be calibrated in each geographic area or is there data to support using a fixed period between Provinces?
Task 3: same comments as for Task 2, except replace coho stream life for steelhead redd life expectancy. More information on coho assessments was presented at the briefing but nothing is included in the proposal.
Related questions to those above include: How was the number of sites selected? How will EMAP be used to select the actual sites? Which rivers will be sampled? What will be the frequency of sampling? What are the methods for sampling habitat and juveniles? How will juvenile abundance be determined? How will the sampling enable detection of trends in distribution and abundance? Will the sampling be adequate to detect range expansion due to habitat recovery? What exactly do the precision estimates mean? How will hatchery and wild spawners be differentiated? When the fish are alive or as carcasses? How will the data be analyzed? In using the AUC technique, what value for stream life is used and why? Is stream life assumed to be constant? If so, why? Why are coastal cutthroat and chinook not included in the monitoring? Is the sampling intensity proposed in these provinces comparable to other provinces? Further, results of surveys in these provinces were presented at the briefings but were not included in the proposal.
Again, the ISRP does not expect the sponsors to present the full text for the monitoring methods taken directly from the Oregon Plan, but rather a concise summary that is sufficient to allow us to judge the scientific credibility of the work and its merit in relation to provincial and the basin recovery.
Comment:
The cost appears excessive. Could the budget be reduced? This level of effort should be well coordinated with other monitoring efforts throughout the Basin.Comment:
If funded this proposal should be combined with project #31034 (Lower Columbia Province) in the contracting process. The costs for both projects would seem excessive for annual monitoring and sampling sites, and may have to be adjusted within an annual budget allotment. Assurances should be given that this will be closely coordinated with NMFS's work in the estuary.While the response addressed most of the ISRP concerns, we continue to be uncertain about the assessment of expanding habitat use and the lack of biological sampling. If sites are selected at random then the coverage of habitats and the issue of assessing range expansion of the fish would be included in the sampling design. If not, then some level of monitoring for expansion should be considered. The issue of biological sampling should be re-considered by the proponents.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUA spatially balanced status monitoring program for Lower Columbia Tributary habitat, juvenile and adult salmonids.
Comments
This proposal proposes a very important monitoring effort that is vital to the management of the province's habitat and anadromous salmonids. Nothing like this program yet exists in this region. The proposal should be coordinated with proposal 31034 to reduce duplication of effort. This proposal has the full support of the NWFSC. This proposal is key to moving the basin forward in a uniform program of monitoring data collection.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Although this proposal addresses RPA 180, this RPA must be addressed Basin-wide; defer until development of RM&E plan for prioritizing research and await the results of pilot study in John Day Subbasin. Appears to be the same proposal as no. 31034 in the Lower Columbia Province.Comment: