FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 200301000
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 |
|---|---|
| 30001 Narrative | Narrative |
| 30001 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 30001 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Estuary: Columbia Estuary Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Estuary: Columbia Estuary Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Historic habitat opportunities and food-web linkages of juvenile salmon in the Columbia River estuary: Implications for managing flows and restoration |
| Proposal ID | 200301000 |
| Organization | Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Daniel L. Bottom |
| Mailing address | 2725 Montlake Blvd E Newport, OR |
| Phone / email | 5418670309 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Michael H. Schiewe |
| Review cycle | Columbia Estuary |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary |
| Short description | Evaluate the role of river flow on habitat opportunities and food web structure for juvenile salmon by comparing historic and current conditions using model simulations and empirically derived food-web linkages. |
| Target species | Fall and spring chinook salmon, chum salmon, coho salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.23 | -123.5 | Columbia River estuary subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 158 |
| 162 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/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. |
| NMFS | 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. |
| 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 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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199801400 | Survival and growth of juvenile salmon in the Columbia River plume | Development of habitat metrics in the plume and 3D model will couple with estuary model and habitat metric development to provide an assessment of the role of river flow on habitat opportunity through the estuary and plume. |
| Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids: Restoration of Lower-Estuary and Plume Habitats | Would provide a detailed physical understanding of plume and lower-estuary processes needed for the development of future management scenarios and of historic conditions influencing salmonid survival |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reconstruction of historic conditions | a. Analysis of horizontal datum-digitizing | $48,000 | ||
| b. Build historic coupled bathymetric/topographic model | $5,500 | |||
| c. Analyze historical tidal data | $41,500 | |||
| d. Estimate total Columbia River flow before 1878 | $23,000 | |||
| e. Reconstruct hydrologic properties after 1878 | $16,000 | |||
| f. Assess Columbia River hydrology in relation to climate | $16,500 | |||
| 2. Simulation of habitat change | a. Construct circulation database | $72,500 | ||
| b. Construct habitat opportunity database | $31,500 | |||
| c. Change analysis of physical habitat opportunity | $19,000 | |||
| 3. Food-web and life history responses | a.Relationship between isotopic signature and estuarine and freshwater life histories | 3 | $56,124 | |
| b. Linkages between estuarine life histories and prey resources using isotopic signatures | 5 | $66,123 | ||
| c. Linkages bewteen estuarine life histories and prey reources using parasite fauna analysis | 5 | $143,371 | ||
| d. Historic assessment of food web linkages using isotopic signatures | 3 | $31,125 | ||
| 4. Implication for estuary restoration | a. Definition of management scenarios | $13,316 | ||
| b. Construct simulation database for management scenarios | $4,500 | |||
| c. Analysis of alternative management scenarios on habitat opportunity for juvenile salmon | $9,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reconstruction of historic conditions | 2004 | 2005 | $190,000 |
| 2. Simulation of habitat change | 2004 | 2005 | $170,000 |
| 3. Food-web and life history responses | 2004 | 2007 | $880,000 |
| 4. Implication for estuary restoration | 2004 | 2005 | $160,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $675,000 | $606,000 | $410,000 | $410,000 |
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 | $57,374 | |
| Fringe | Salary Benefits | $13,757 |
| Supplies | Lab supplies, etc | $27,100 |
| Travel | Field work and meetings | $12,500 |
| Indirect | Overhead | $35,610 |
| Subcontractor | OGI @OSHS | $294,048 |
| Subcontractor | University of Washington | $76,731 |
| Subcontractor | Oregon State University | $80,439 |
| $597,559 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $597,559 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $597,559 |
| 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 is a well written, comprehensive proposal. The research uses novel techniques for addressing critical questions concerning historic changes in estuarine habitat and the food resources of juvenile salmon, and the influence of various flow scenarios on estuarine habitat opportunity for salmon. Results of this research should provide significant improvements in understanding of the role of the estuary in salmon life histories and production, and provide information that will be useful in flow management of the hydrosystem. This proposal appears to overlap with two other proposals entitled "Plume" and "Optimization" that address similar questions. Some clarification of the unique contribution of this proposal relative to the two others is needed. The sponsors should be more specific about how they are going to use the historic information. How is this work different from that in the Thomas report? Is the Corps currently conducting similar work, extended from the Thomas report? The subcontractor is not noted in the budget section. Is the budget complete given the comments in 9G?Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable, agree with CBFWA's High Priority, first priority in estuary programs. This is a well written and comprehensive proposal. The research uses novel techniques for addressing critical questions concerning historic changes in estuarine habitat and the food resources of juvenile salmon, and the influence of various flow scenarios on estuarine habitat opportunity for salmon. Results of this research should provide significant improvements in understanding of the role of the estuary in salmon life histories and production, and provide information that will be useful in flow management of the hydrosystem.The response to the ISRP questions was concise and thorough. The response addressed each ISRP concern (including overlap with other estuary proposals) and demonstrated excellent background knowledge of past work in the area and the limitations of that work.
NOTE: The only response that was incomplete referred to the budget and section 9G. The basis of the question was that section 9G included the statement "We are requesting through this proposal funds to modestly expand the number of compute servers and the capacity for fast-access storage." However the budget does not include any funds for equipment, therefore, we questioned whether the budget was complete. Presumably the funds are included in one of the totals but that needs to be confirmed and related costs itemized.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are Indirect. Fulfills some of the critical information gaps identified in the NMFS report 'Salmon at River's End' submitted to BPA. Will lead to a basis to evaluate habitat protection and restoration needs in the lower Columbia River and estuary in relation to changing climatic and river flow conditions.
Comments
The proposal is complete, ready to implement, and fulfills Biop requirements in part. Because this proposal is sponsored by NOAA Fisheries, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on it.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend funding to implement; this should be funded as part of a comprehensive program and needs to coordinate with 30002, 1998-014-00, 30007, 30010 and the NMFS Systemwide acoustic project.Comment:
Columbia Estuary Issue 1: ESA Research Projects, Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume (Project 199801400); Holistic Habitat Opportunities and Food-Web Linkages of Juvenile Salmon (Project 30001); Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids (Project 30002); Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying Ocean Survival and Movements of Columbia River Salmon (Project 30007); Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (Project 30010)
Council Recommendation: These five proposals are all research proposals involving study of the estuary habitat, the Columbia River plume and the ocean habitats that Columbia River salmon traverse during their migration. The Council is recommending two of these proposals for funding in this provincial review, that two of the proposals be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration, and that one proposal not be funded at this time. Of the five research projects, only 199801400 is an ongoing effort. It has proposed a rather substantial expansion of its plume study. It received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and the ISRP gave it a fundable recommendation, noting that the project sponsors felt that tasks 4 and 5 could be deferred for 1-2 years if budget constraints affected funding. NOAA Fisheries supported this NOAA Fisheries sponsored research project. They identified the project addressing numerous RPAs, but most significantly RPAs 158 and 162. Bonneville supported the project, but noted that it should coordinate with the other four proposed research projects. Bonneville's comments on the other four proposals are similar to their comments on 199801400 and will only be addressed here.
The Council agrees with the ISRP, BPA and NOAA Fisheries that the project provides an important research effort, which could probe how the hydrosystem and its operation impacts the estuary and near-shore ocean and plume environment. The Council also supports the expansion of objectives 1,2 and 3 of the project believing that these expanded objects will address ESA concerns in a fashion that outweighs the Council's lower priority for expanded research projects. However, the Council agrees with the ISRP and the project sponsors that Objectives 4 and 5 could be deferred. The Council does not recommend funding those two objectives at this time. Funds for the base of this project and for the expansion of the ongoing objects would come from the base allocation for the provinces.
Project 30001 received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and a fundable recommendation from the ISRP. NOAA Fisheries supported the project, again unsurprising, noting that the project addressed RPAs 158 and 162. The Council supports funding the project as another important research opportunity to address ESA concerns that would outweigh the Council's lower priority on new research projects.
Funds for the new Project 30001 would come from the unallocated placeholder since funding this project would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces. Though given a High Priority designation from CBFWA and supported by the ISRP and NOAA Fisheries, the Council does not recommend funding project 30002 at this time. The Council's reasoning is based upon the ISRP comments on this project and upon budgetary constraints. ISRP stated that "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." [Emphasis added.] The Council believes that other projects that implement ESA actions and provide results in the time period of the current FCRPS Biological Opinion during this tight budget situation should outweigh implementation of this research proposal. Project 30002 could be better sequenced at a later time to take advantage of the information gained from the expansion of Project 199801400.
The Council finds that the other proposals, 30010 and 30007, should be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration. Project 30010 is clearly an ocean research proposal and does not fit within the geographic scope of the Lower Columbia and Estuary Provincial review. It is more appropriately considered in the Mainstem/Systemwide review along with other ocean research projects.
Project 30007 also involves ocean research, but has research elements for the plume and near shelf that could be considered under the Lower Columbia and Estuary review. Although given a Do Not Fund recommendation by CBFWA, the ISRP rated this project as fundable, but recommended funding at a reduced level from the proposal. Both NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville suggested moving the project to the Mainstem/Systemwide review, BPA noting that the project could coordinate with a similar NOAA Fisheries proposal on acoustic tracking. The Council agrees with these comments and would suggest reviewing the project in the Mainstem/Systemwide process.
Comment:
Fund to implement RAP 158, 162Comment:
Project has begun, no invoices received yet. Number of partners in this project. Project just started in June, invoices coming in next month. Project just got approval to spend money from NOAA last week. Project partners can go two months backward for invoicing, so they are still on track for this year. No delay anticipated for future years, so project looks on track. BPA focusing on getting invoicing in more timely manner. NMFS trying to make sure accounting and invoicing moves quickly. Meeting was two weeks ago.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $606,000 | $606,000 | $606,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website