FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 200300600

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

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The work is needed but the proposal lacks adequate description of the research design and methods for accomplishing the work. Why was Baker Bay chosen as a reference site? What are the locations of the fish sampling sites? How will fish be sampled? Will tidal channels be trap netted? Will all major habitat types within the estuary be sampled? Will the same sampling methods be used in Baker Bay as in the Chinook estuary? More detail is needed concerning the scale analysis. How will the origin of fish be determined from scales? How will freshwater and estuarine growth be distinguished? How will growth rate be determined from scales? Many water quality sampling stations are shown on the map in Figure 2. How will water quality be sampled at these locations? How often? How will structural changes in the estuary as a result of restoration efforts (e.g., redevelopment of tidal channels, vegetation changes) be quantified and related to fish distribution and abundance? The sponsors plan to develop a computer database. Will an existing database structure and monitoring protocol be used so data is applicable across the basin?

Comment:

Comment:

The response indicates a firm level of funding for basic tidegate removal and describes an approach to design of tidegate removal and modification of channel width that is a practical compromise between available budget, ecological goals, and flood protection. The response indicates that proposers are well aware of the tradeoffs associated with each level of budget and the project has excellent support from partners.

This proposal is similar to 30004 in that it would benefit from more analytical advice on sampling and study design. Explanations of the reference site and the sample design are still too brief. For example, will the scale analysis as described in the response produce the desired information?

Comment:

Comments
The Chinook River project is an excellent example of how to design a restoration project. It is part of a larger restoration program proposed by LCREP and member organizations (Sea Resources). Project will increase our knowledge of salmonid utilization of the estuarine environment. Important M&E to provide a measure of the success of estuarine restoration projects. It is complete and ready to implement. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment:

Columbia Estuary Issue 3: Columbia Estuary Assessment and Monitoring Projects Effectiveness Monitoring of Chinook Estuary (Project 30006); Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring and Data Management (Project 30015)

Council Recommendation: Proposed by Sea Resources, project 30006 would monitor and evaluate changes in habitat attributes and juvenile salmonid use before and after the Chinook River estuary restoration project. The project seeks no implementation funding, merely funding for monitoring and evaluation. Washington's Salmon Recovery Funding Board provided funds for actions to restore the Chinook estuary ($375,000). (See Lower Columbia and Estuary General Issue 4.)

The project was supported by CBFWA as a High Priority, the ISRP as fundable, NOAA Fisheries as an excellent example of a restoration project and Bonneville as supportive of funding to remove the tidegate and address several RPAs. The Council recommends funding this project and believes project 30006 is an excellent opportunity to leverage outside program funding for relatively little cost.

Project 30015 proposed by LCREP would develop protocols, procedures, and indicators for measuring habitat condition, assess exposure levels to toxic contaminants, develop ecosystem restoration information center for housing and accessing data specific to lower Columbia River and estuary. Supported by CBFWA as High Priority, the ISRP expressed some concerns in its fundable recommendation. ISRP wanted the project's database development to tie in closely with existing WDFW and ODFW databases. They also raised concern about the budget and recommended the Council require a more comprehensive description of the monitoring plan and components of the database.

NOAA Fisheries supports the project and notes its ties to the plume study 199801400 and to the proposed plume study 30002. Bonneville also supported the project as responsive to RPA 198 (development of a common data management system), though they cautioned to negotiate a statement of work that avoided overlap with other projects.

Although the Council supports the monitoring effort of LCREP, we must condition that support. The Council recommends close coordination of this effort with the NOAA Fisheries/ NWPPC project for the Columbia Basin Cooperative Information System (CBCIS). Therefore, the Council does not support the development of a database for this project until that regional effort has had the opportunity to make its recommendations on a coordinated approach to database development. The Council would not support the funding of objective three in either the Planning and Design and Construction and Implementation portions of the budget for project 30015.

The Council also notes the costs of the project ramp-up sharply in Fiscal Year 2004, well beyond the 3.4% increase that has been used for project expansion in the provincial reviews. However, the costs appear justified, since the monitoring program implementation largely does not take place until Fiscal Year 2004. The Council supports the ISRP recommendation that it receive a more comprehensive description of the monitoring plan, to ISRP and Council satisfaction, prior to the initiation of those tasks.

Monies for both of these projects would come from the unallocated placeholder, since funding these projects would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website