FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31007
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 |
|---|---|
| Map: Location of Tributary Streams in Portland | Response Attachment |
| 31007 Narrative | Narrative |
| 31007 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Distribution and seasonal habitat use of ESA-listed salmonid species in City of Portland tributary streams |
| Proposal ID | 31007 |
| Organization | City of Portland, Endangered Species Act Program (Portland, OR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jim Middaugh |
| Mailing address | 1900 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 4100 Portland, OR 97201-5350 |
| Phone / email | 5038237032 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Jim Middaugh |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Determine the distribution and seasonal habitat use of listed salmonids in City of Portland watersheds. Use information to guide development of a recovery plan, determine necessary protective measures, and monitor effectiveness of protective measures. |
| Target species | Steelhead, chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey, sturgeon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.5242 | -122.675 | City of Portland |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 154 |
| 158 |
| 159 |
| 169 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2001 | Identified, purchased and prepared sampling supplies |
| Developed sampling protocols | |
| Identified sampling areas | |
| Contacted landowners for permission to access waterways on their properties | |
| Conducted presence/absence and 100 meter sampling in Miller, Saltzman, Balch, Stephens, Tryon, Johnson, Kelley and Crystal Springs creeks | |
| Entered and verified data collected |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Determine distribution and seasonal habitat use patters of ESA-listed salmonids and other species in Portland watersheds | a. Conduct seasonal standardized electroshocking for fish in approximately 12 Portland watersheds | 1 | $50,000 | Yes |
| b. Estimate abundance of listed salmonids in summer and calculate an Index of Biotic Integrity for each stream | 1 | $6,000 | Yes | |
| c. Determine seasonal habitat use patterns of listed salmonids in each stream | 1 | $6,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Determine distribution and seasonal habitat use patters of ESA-listed salmonids and other species in Portland watersheds | 2003 | 2004 | $62,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 |
|---|
| $62,000 |
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 |
|---|
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 | $31,500 | |
| Fringe | $15,000 | |
| Supplies | Waders, rain gear, etc. | $3,000 |
| Travel | Truck rental and milage | $2,500 |
| Indirect | $10,000 | |
| Subcontractor | All work subcontracted to ODFW | $0 |
| $62,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $62,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $62,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| City of Portland | Aquatic habitat inventories in target streams | $120,000 | cash |
| Web site, publications, agency coordination, landowner contacts, etc | $10,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The sponsors need to provide a better description of the reaches that will be sampled, their size, and location. What is the rationale for selecting the sampling reaches? Will the sampling design adequately determine the extent of utilization of the lower tributary reaches by juvenile salmon? How often will each reach be sampled in each season? What will be done with the information once it is collected? Will presence/absence and abundance be related to habitat conditions? A more thorough description of the habitat sampling design, methods, the kinds of data collected, and the scale of the data (i.e., valley segment scale, reach scale, channel unit scale, etc.) is needed. Will habitat be sampled concurrently with fish sampling or will the information from habitat sampling in 2001 be used? Strong justification is needed for relating habitat data collected in 2001 to fish abundance data collected in 2002, especially at the channel unit and microhabitat scale. Sampling (both fish and habitat) in fall, winter, and spring is essential to determine utilization by juvenile migrants. Although there are logistical difficulties and safety concerns involved with sampling streams in the fall, winter, and spring, as the proposal acknowledges, the ISRP is uncertain about the City's commitment to fall, winter, and spring sampling. Sampling in the fall (e.g., October), especially, should not be problem. A thorough discussion of how the data will be analyzed is needed. The method of estimating abundance will be based on correlations of abundance with surface area. How will the correlations be used to decide which method to employ to estimate abundance? Will correlations of abundance and sampling unit volume be examined? Why not estimate abundance in several different ways (habitat unit, area, volume)? What does an IBI in a highly disturbed habitat provide?Comment:
There is an outstanding question of whether or not this project is a BPA mitigation responsibility relative to impacts of the hydrosystem.Comment:
Fundable, this is technically sound and the response is thorough. The response is detailed and responsive to most questions including those on sampling design and data analysis. Although the point they make of not associating fish presence with habitat condition is somewhat confusing. Isn't this what you would want to do to assess likely success of habitat restoration? The description of data analysis is still not detailed, resting on references to calculating IBIs. The proposed IBI, although adequately described in the response, is not very useful in reviewers' opinion, especially in such highly disturbed environments. They need to re-consider this use.The ISRP did not ask and the proposal still does not make clear to reviewers what effect protecting some small fragments of urban streams will have on the restoration of salmon to the basin. It's important to the city, in the name of preserving some natural stream functioning that's left, and the protection of listed stocks may require it, but, from the information provided, it does not appear to offer substantial restoration of salmon habitat or substantial restoration of stocks. However, for the amount requested, the project is likely worth the investment to support the city's interest in conservation and land management -- a policy issue and choice.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUFuture benefit for planning and assessment leading to protection and restoration - direct benefits limited
Comments
General in nature and may be part of HCP/4d. Commitment to action or link to specific habitat protection/restoration limited. Potentially valuable information. Needs links to information management/distribution.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No
Comment:
Project may be more appropriately addressed by ODFW and the City of Portland under section 4D of the ESA and to address urban planning issues raised in the proposal. We also note that these stocks are not directly affected by FCRPS actions.Comment: