FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199801600

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

Expanding the scope of the project is the primary reason for the increase in the estimated budget. This expansion in scope is in direct response to ISRP criticisms of our FY 2000 proposal. Increased objectives and tasks include: 1.) Basin-wide sampling procedure for spawner surveys. 2.) Use of rotary screw traps to associate smolt production to specific management units. 3.) Measurment of parr rearing and adult holding distribution. An increase of 2.9 FTE's in personnel was also needed to accomplish these additional tasks.

Reason for change in scope

Expanding the scope of the project is in direct response to ISRP criticisms of our FY 2000 proposal. Increased objectives and tasks resulting from ISRP suggestions include: 1.) Basin-wide sampling procedure for spawner surveys. 2.) Use of rotary screw traps to associate smolt production to specific management units.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Fundable but a response is needed that addresses the ISRP concerns. This project proposal is much improved from the previous year's proposals. We recommend that the Tier I and II monitoring and evaluation (BiOp 2000) for spring chinook in the John Day Basin (Objectives 1 and 4 in this proposal) be removed from this project and funded under Project #25088 on which the PI is a co-investigator. Further, habitat and water quality work should be coordinated with #25010 (if funded).

Objectives 2, 3 should be resubmitted under a separate proposal incorporating Objective 2 of project #25088.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
Project is to monitor natural escapement & productivity of John Day River Basin spring chinook & summer steelhead -- estimating SAR, egg-to-smolt survival, smolt abundance, & adult & parr distribution for chinook, & spawner escapement for steelhead.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Comment:

Projects 25088, 199405400 and 199801600 -- Monitoring activities in the Columbia Plateau south subbasins.

In its original proposal for project 25088, ODFW had proposed a number of tasks that appeared to ISRP to have no relation to each other. One aspect was a Deschutes Steelhead Stray Study, an advanced anadromous monitoring and evaluation study that formed the basis of Oregon's statewide monitoring, a bull trout monitoring and evaluation component similar to the anadromous study, and a law enforcement component. ISRP requested that the project be broken up into its logical components and appended to or coordinated with currently ongoing and complimentary projects. The sponsors complied with the ISRP request.

Tasks originally included in 25088 spread into two existing projects as follows: the bull trout EMAP monitoring and evaluation component was added into project 199405400 and the anadromous EMAP monitoring and evaluation component of 25088 was added to project 199801600, resulting in a 628.7% increase in the existing 199801600 project budget over the FY 2001 forecast. The sponsors had compartmentalized the steelhead stray study and the law enforcement project, but the new projects were not assigned new numbers, and instead simply entitled the various components 25088a (the steelhead study), 25088b (a research study that was supported by CBFWA only as a Recommended Action), and 25088c (the law enforcement component).

ODFW dropped project 25088b due to lack of consensus. CBFWA supported the assignment of the anadromous tasks to 199801600, the bull trout tasks to 199405400, and the steelhead stray study of 25088a. The managers supported the law enforcement project 25088c, but with reservations that it presented an in lieu issue, and needed coordination with other managers.

The ISRP has reviewed the various components of the original 25088 project. Though the panel supported that proposal, they left no indication of their intentions with the other projects.

Staff recommendation: 25088a is primarily a research study with monitoring and assessment elements. As such, it would fall under the Council criteria as a disfavored category of new or expanded research initiatives.

The Council must determine the funding priorities for law enforcement projects. NMFS has not identified project 25088c as implementing the Biological Opinion, so the project meets only the collaboratively developed criteria. The Council has funded other law enforcement projects and has another proposal pending in the Umatilla subbasin. These projects, if funded, should be coordinated and held to the same reporting standards as previously funded law enforcement projects.

Project 199801600 is an ongoing project with a greatly expanded scope based upon the ISRP recommendation to join the evaluation work proposed in the original 25088 into a cooperative project. The Council would fund the ongoing work under General Issue 2 (the funding criteria) .

The new work in project 199801600 would appear to be assessment type of activities that would aid the Council in subbasin planning under the Program. The John Day is also a priority subbasin for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau has been actively pursuing development of a monitoring program funded by Bonneville in the John Day to complement the Action Agencies' Biological Opinion responsibilities. Staff believes these new activities will help the Action Agencies address their monitoring and evaluation responsibilities under the Biological Opinion.

Staff recommends that the monitoring in the John Day should be a coordinated effort and that Bonneville is correct in the need to coordinate these activities. The Council should emphasize the need for coordination through the BPA contracting process.

Budget effect on base program (Project 25088*):

Budget effect on base program (Project 199801600):

*The budget represents funding for the steelhead stray project, referred to as 25088a, and does not reflect the project associated with law enforcement, referred to as 25088c.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website