FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200201700
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 |
|---|---|
| 25010 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25010 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Columbia Plateau: Deschutes Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Deschutes Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Regional Stream Conditions and Stressor Evaluation |
| Proposal ID | 200201700 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (OR DEQ) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Rick Hafele |
| Mailing address | 2020 SW 4th Ave., Suite 400 Portland, OR 97201 |
| Phone / email | 5032295349 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Rick Hafele |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Deschutes |
| Short description | Evaluate status and trends of key factors limiting listed species within subbasins by developing a statistically based model to characterize baseline conditions and identify conditions at regional reference sites. |
| Target species | Steelhead, Chinook, Coho and Bulltrout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Deschutes, John Day and Umatilla subbasins will all be involved in the study. | ||
| 44.57 | -121 | Deschutes subbasin |
| 44.78 | -119.59 | John Day subbasin |
| 45.6 | -118.9 | Umatilla subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Completed a 2-year stream condition assessment of upper Deschutes basin. Data currently being assessed for status of water quality and habitat conditions within upper Deschutes basin. |
| 2000 | Completed a 2-year stream condition assessment of Western Cascades ecoregion. Data currently being assessed for status of water quality and habitat conditions within Western Cascades ecoregion basin. |
| 2000 | Completed first year of a 4-year monitoring study to assess stream conditions within the John Day and Lower Deschutes basins |
| 2000 | Completed a pilot study to identify and sample reference sites (sites least affacted by human disturbance) in the Blue Mountain ecoregion. |
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Finalize monitoring design. | a. Select randomly located monitoring sites within subbasins | 1 | $10,000 | |
| 1. cont. | b. Identify and select candidate reference sites. | 1 | $36,000 | |
| 1. cont. | c. Contact landowners and complete site recon for annual study sites. | 3 | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Map and recon study sites | 2003 | 2004 | $40,000 |
| 2. Evaluate candidate reference sites | 2003 | 2004 | $72,000 |
| 3. Complete site recon of study and reference sites | 2003 | 2004 | $40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $66,000 | $66,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Characterize water quality conditions within subbasins and regional reference sites | a. Collect and analyze water quality samples at selected sites. | 3 | $34,000 | |
| 2. Characterize habitat conditions within subbasins and regional reference sites. | a. Collect and analyze habitat data | 3 | $36,000 | |
| 3. Charatize biolgocal conditions within streams at subbasins and regional reference sites. | a. Collect and analyze biological data. | 3 | $38,000 | |
| b. Identify macroinvertebrate samples | 3 | $6,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Characterize water quality conditions. | 2003 | 2004 | $68,000 |
| 2. Characterize habitat conditions. | 2003 | 2004 | $72,000 |
| 3. Characterize biological conditions. | 2003 | 2004 | $88,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $114,000 | $114,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2 | $80,000 |
| Fringe | $30,000 | |
| Supplies | $26,000 | |
| Travel | $17,000 | |
| Indirect | $21,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $6,000 | |
| $180,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $180,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $180,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA | Site mapping and design assistance | $20,000 | in-kind |
| DEQ | Project development and technical assisstance | $40,000 | 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
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. The ISRP strongly supports this proposal, but requests responses to some minor questions. This proposal is to use random site selection based on EPA EMAP procedures to monitor water quality, habitat condition and distribution and abundance of fish. This project would extend the current effort in the John Day and Deschutes into the Umatilla. The budget does not seem unreasonable.
This project is to establish the conditions of stream habitat, water chemistry and biological communities in the John Day, Deschutes and Umatilla subbasins. The work described will provide needed baseline information for salmon recovery. Appropriate sampling design and statistical methods are described, and there is good coordination with other state agencies and with EPA. Data summaries and interpretative reports will complement existing reports on other subbasins.
This is one of the first BPA projects (along with #25088) that the ISRP has reviewed that has probabilistic site selection as a basis for the monitoring. These methods could provide Tier II monitoring as envisioned in the BiOp and 4-H papers (Basinwide Recovery Strategies).
The plan is integrated with the Oregon Plan for Salmon & watersheds (OPSW) monitoring studies by Oregon DEW and ODFW. These methods are probably the best chance for development of subbasin and province wide monitoring efforts if the State of Washington could be brought in.
If access to sites is denied or difficult, how is the site handled in the sample? In the analysis?
Is electrofishing the only method used for assessing the fish community? Should the Hankin and Revees procedures be considered?
Does the project require someone from EPA to help implement the procedure? Or analyze the data? In general, EMAP sites are selected with unequal probability. Is this taken into account during the analysis.
The DEQ web site did not seem to include methods describing the sampling procedures or the analysis procedures. In fact, in the Grande Ronde fish survey report for 1994-99, it does not look like the EMAP sampling procedure was used. Was it?
Comment:
This project would address NMFS RPA 154 as well as provide an important component to Oregon's monitoring plan to evaluate fish and wildlife for federal bi-op programs. Reviewers suggest that some of the data that would be collected through this project may exist and recommend that existing data should be reviewed to avoid duplicative actions. Although this project is coordinated with 199801600, additional coordination needs to occur with 25069, and 25088b. Funding should be delayed until coordination will insure data overlaps will be minimized. There is a strong divide within the fish and wildlife co-managers regarding the adequacy of the existing monitoring and evaluation programs in particular subbasins. All monitoring projects in these basins need to be evaluated to determine whether there is or is not significant overlap in the monitoring programs. The CTUIR strongly believes that existing M&E in the Umatilla subbasin is adequate and additional monitoring in this subbasin will be redundant. Coordination within these subbasins among the fish and wildlife co-managers should be a pre-requirement for funding this project. In general, the tribes believe that adequate coordination has not occurred to justify funding this project at this time. CBFWA can only provide consensus support for moving forward with this project where data gaps occur in the John Day subbasin. The remaining subbasins would be considered Recommended Action.Comment:
Fundable, high priority. There are other new proposals, e.g. #25088, that if funded should be coordinated with this project under the overall Oregon Plan for Salmon & Watersheds (OPSW) monitoring studies. The ISRP assumes that these proposals were submitted independently of each other and in fact that proponents may not have been aware of each others' proposals.The proponents have plans to coordinate sample design and combine data from two projects: Salmonid Habitat and Population Monitoring (Project ID 199801600) and Bull Trout (Project ID 199405400). Council should ensure that all funded projects for monitoring fish and aquatic habitat in Oregon are coordinated under the Oregon Plan for Salmon &Watersheds monitoring. In so far as possible, the Council should also influence projects from the State of Washington to use monitoring procedures that are compatible with the Oregon Plan. The protocols of this project should also be consistent with project 25069 with regard to water quality parameters and measurement methods.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect -- Project intends to evaluate status and trends of key factors limiting listed species within subbasins by developing a statistically based model to characterize baseline conditions and identify conditions at regional reference sites.
Comments
Statistically based baseline data on salmonid habitat in John Day, Umatilla, and Deschutes subbasins. Some of the data that would be collected through this project may exist & recommend that existing data be reviewed to avoid duplicative actions. Although project is coordinated with #199801600, additional coordination needs to occur with #25069 and #25088b. Suggest that funding be delayed until coordination will insure data overlaps will be minimized. Coordination within proposed subbasins among the F&W co-managers should be a pre-requisite for funding this project.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
This proposal would evaluate the status and trends of key factors limiting listed species within subbasins by developing a statistically based model to characterize baseline conditions and identify conditions at regional reference sites. BPA believes that this project could be referred to an ad hoc work group along with related R, M&E projects in Oregon subbasins. This proposal covers the Deschutes, John Day, and Umatilla subbasins and proposes sampling designs and methods that are very similar to several other proposals for the same subbasins. The ad hoc committee would define a reasonable preliminary R, M&E program for each subbasin and identify, with proposal sponsors, which projects and organizations can best fill that program. Comments from CBFWA and the ISRP noted these redundancies and the need to resolve them.Nevertheless, the EMAP sampling design and the utility of sampling high quality reference sites are desirable to some extent, particularly for a prototype subbasin like the John Day. BPA agrees with the ISRP’s desire to use this project as a model for habitat monitoring. The budget appears reasonable, but no justification is provided for why so many reference sites must be sampled each year in each of the three subbasins to characterize what constitutes high quality habitat. The number seems excessive, particularly in the John Day subbasin where the project sponsor (ODEQ) is already conducting a 4-year EPA-funded EMAP (i.e., representative) study that apparently includes some high quality sample sites. There are other redundancies that must be resolved. Both this proposal and ODFW’s proposal #25088 would collect much of the same data (although variables are not listed in either proposal) in the same subbasins. This proposal needs further review.
Comment:
Staff Recommendation: Project 25010: The agreed upon budget should only reflect the tasks that would take place to support action in the John Day.Budget effect on base program (Project 25010):
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| Increase $80,000 | Increase $80,000 | Increase $80,000 |
Comment:
Comment:
Late start, might want to continue out an additional year in 05. Might have to reschedule 10K of work into FY03.Comment: