FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308000
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 |
|---|---|
| 35022 Narrative | Narrative |
| 35022 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| 35022 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Habitat Mitigation Tracking System |
| Proposal ID | 200308000 |
| Organization | Steward and Associates |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Cleve Steward |
| Mailing address | 120 Avenue A, Suite D Snohomish, WA 98290 |
| Phone / email | 3608621255 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | Assist BPA in meeting its habitat mitigation obligation and, if appropriate, receiving credit, as specified under RPAs 180 and 183 in the FCRPS Biological Opinion. |
| Target species | Listed and non-listed chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, steelhead, bull trout, and cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| System-wide |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 180 |
| 183 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | a. Review and identify external and internal output needs for tracking programmatic compliance | 1 | $48,999 | Yes |
| b. Define and select a small but powerful suite of biological and environmental indicators to evaluate the success of BPA-funded habitat projects | 1 | $30,560 | Yes | |
| c. Create conceptual database model, and identify geographic subset for which to populate the system | 1 | $28,217 | Yes | |
| d. Build and implement prototype system for the selected geographic subset of BPA-funded habitat projects based on the approved conceptual database model | 1 | $64,261 | Yes | |
| e. Expand prototype system to include all BPA-funded habitat projects | 1 | $49,020 | Yes | |
| f. Operate and maintain system | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | a. Identify parameters for credit measurement and develop crediting protocol | 1 | $10,450 | Yes |
| b. Create database report to facilitate crediting process | 1 | $5,688 | Yes | |
| c. Develop proposal for Action Agency to implement crediting protocol | 1 | $16,400 | Yes | |
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | a. Evaluate the extent to which habitat attributes may be shaped into surrogate measure(s) of progress towards increases in life-stage and population performance measures | 1 | $17,830 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | 2004 | 2007 | $790,752 |
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | 2004 | 2007 | $6,345 |
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | 2004 | 2007 | $5,577 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $79,128 | $33,800 | $18,485 | $11,802 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | a. Review and identify external and internal output needs for tracking programmatic compliance | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Define and select a small but powerful suite of biological and environmental indicators to evaluate the success of BPA-funded habitat projects | 1 | $8,510 | Yes | |
| c. Create conceptual database model, and identify geographic subset for which to populate the system | 1 | $0 | Yes | |
| d. Build and implement prototype system for the selected geographic subset of BPA-funded habitat projects based on the approved conceptual database model | 1 | $47,470 | Yes | |
| e. Expand prototype system to include all BPA-funded habitat projects | 1 | $26,403 | Yes | |
| f. Operate and maintain system | 1 | $0 | ||
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | a. Identify parameters for credit measurement and develop crediting protocol | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Create database report to facilitate crediting process | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Develop proposal for Action Agency to implement crediting protocol | 1 | $0 | ||
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | a. Evaluate the extent to which habitat attributes may be shaped into surrogate measure(s) of progress towards increases in life-stage and population performance measures | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | 2004 | 2007 | $237,226 |
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | 2004 | 2007 | $19,035 |
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | 2004 | 2007 | $16,732 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $105,504 | $101,400 | $36,970 | $23,603 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | a. Review and identify external and internal output needs for tracking programmatic compliance | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Define and select a small but powerful suite of biological and environmental indicators to evaluate the success of BPA-funded habitat projects | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Create conceptual database model, and identify geographic subset for which to populate the system | 1 | $0 | ||
| d. Build and implement prototype system for the selected geographic subset of BPA-funded habitat projects based on the approved conceptual database model | 1 | $0 | ||
| e. Expand prototype system to include all BPA-funded habitat projects | 1 | $0 | ||
| f. Operate and maintain system | 1 | $91,936 | Yes | |
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | a. Identify parameters for credit measurement and develop crediting protocol | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Create database report to facilitate crediting process | 1 | $0 | ||
| c. Develop proposal for Action Agency to implement crediting protocol | 1 | $0 | ||
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | a. Evaluate the extent to which habitat attributes may be shaped into surrogate measure(s) of progress towards increases in life-stage and population performance measures | 1 | $16,387 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | 2004 | 2007 | $276,763 |
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | 2004 | 2007 | $22,207 |
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | 2004 | 2007 | $19,521 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $52,752 | $56,333 | $55,456 | $118,015 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | a. Review and identify external and internal output needs for tracking programmatic compliance | $0 | ||
| b. Define and select a small but powerful suite of biological and environmental indicators to evaluate the success of BPA-funded habitat projects | $0 | |||
| c. Create conceptual database model, and identify geographic subset for which to populate the system | $0 | |||
| d. Build and implement prototype system for the selected geographic subset of BPA-funded habitat projects based on the approved conceptual database model | $0 | |||
| e. Expand prototype system to include all BPA-funded habitat projects | $0 | |||
| f. Operate and maintain system | $0 | |||
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | a. Identify parameters for credit measurement and develop crediting protocol | $0 | ||
| b. Create database report to facilitate crediting process | $0 | |||
| c. Develop proposal for Action Agency to implement crediting protocol | $0 | |||
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | a. Evaluate the extent to which habitat attributes may be shaped into surrogate measure(s) of progress towards increases in life-stage and population performance measures | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Design and Implement System to Track Programmatic Compliance of BPA-Funded Habitat Projects and to Facilitate Evaluation of Project Success | 2004 | 2007 | $197,688 |
| 2. Develop and Implement Protocol for NMFS and USFWS to Confer Credit to the Action Agencies | 2004 | 2007 | $15,862 |
| 3. Develop Surrogate Habitat Measures for Biological Performance Measures That Cannot Be Directly Measured | 2004 | 2007 | $13,943 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $26,376 | $33,800 | $73,941 | $82,611 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.2 | $90,871 |
| Fringe | $38,777 | |
| Supplies | $3,153 | |
| Travel | $5,770 | |
| Indirect | $11,360 | |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $312,200 | |
| $462,131 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $462,131 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $462,131 |
| 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
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
This proposal outlines work designed to ensure that mitigation projects make a positive, measurable contribution towards salmon recovery, that BPA receives credit for its efforts, and that additional mitigation opportunities and constraints are identified and communicated to fish and wildlife managers and the public. This project would introduce another level of M&E that may overlap with the responsibilities of the Council's FWP.A response should include a description of provisions for monitoring and evaluation of the results. There should be a clear strategy for obtaining feedback from users of these products to determine if the project has been successful. More information on the relationship of this project with other ongoing activities is necessary.
Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
HABITAT ACTION EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH SUBGROUP -- Does Proposal Satisfy RPA Objectives?
Principally, this proposal is not RPA 183 relevant because it doesn't address monitoring or implementation of specific projects as identified under RPA 183 of the BIOP. Rather it requests funds to develop a programmatic structure.
What Elements are Lacking.
This proposal is weakened by a lack of specific information on what the developed products will look like. For example the proposal includes large scale quotes of the Paulsen et al (2002) document that describes what projects should look like, but does not identify current habitat projects that it would coordinate.
This project received primary review by the Data Management Subgroup. Like 35001, 35020 and 35050, it proposes to organize a project management team to track, prioritize, and coordinate projects within the Columbia River Basin. This project has three objectives: 1) develop a framework to track project implementation, 2) develop a system to confer credit on those doing the projects and 3) to develop habitat indicators as surrogates for fish responses. The criteria above indicate that programmatic proposals that lack any supporting intention to do some monitoring will receive low priority. In addition.
Means and Opportunities to Strengthen Proposal.
This proposal would be strengthened by more detailed information on what habitat improvement projects are currently out there to be monitored. If there were some assessment of current projects, then one might be able to provide some more details within the proposal to allow the reader to know that the proposal sponsors are constructing an appropriate team and that they know what they are getting into.
DATA MANAGEMENT SUBGROUP -- Does the Proposal meet RPA needs?
The Action Agencies have an urgent need for tracking habitat related projects to meet its obligations under the Biological Opinion. This proposal addresses those obligations directly. The project seems to be designed particularly to address RPA 183 and the evaluation of the benefits of offsite mitigation habitat actions. The proposal does not seem to meet the Action 198 goal to develop a Cooperative Information System.
Elements the Proposal is Lacking
The proposal does not state that it will provide a structured hierarchical program for status monitoring. There is some lack of clarity in the proposal. At one level it is described as a project compliance system. On the surface, this is a relatively simple data collection task: was the proposal completed as planned? At the next level the proposal plans to gather information about the success of these projects. This is a much more difficult task, especially since, as the proponents state, the indicators for success have not been developed or agreed upon. These issues need to be clearly resolved.
Means and Opportunities to Strengthen Proposal
The proposed information system, to be successful needs to be designed to at least reference other project data. While the proposed data collection system is focused on BPA funded projects there are potentially other projects that would need to be considered before the effectiveness of a particular BPA funded project could be evaluated. Stating the provisions for data retention and protection would greatly enhance this proposal. Private operation and maintenance of the database implies a long term and ongoing obligation for this service. On one hand the proposal is for private data management while the proposal also claims that the tracking system will reduce the BPA's overall liability. On the surface these claims appear contradictory. More information on coordination with other ongoing projects would alleviate potential for duplication of other work currently in progress. For example, this proposal appears to duplicate the RME work group's "Protocols for Monitoring Habitat-Based Environmental Indicators" study by Hillman and Giorgi. Broadening the project focus to a wider constituency beyond BPA Program Managers, Scientists, and Administrators for needs gathering and evaluation would strengthen the proposal.
Feasibility of Proposed Work
There is no indication of adoption of metadata standards.
ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:
There is agreement between the ISRP and the RME Workgroups that additional information is needed to explain the relationship between this project and other ongoing activities. The RME Workgroups indicated that more specific information was needed in order to strengthen the proposal and evaluate its benefits. This lack of detail may explain why one RME Workgroup comments that this proposal is not RPA 183 relevant while another Workgroup states that the proposal is designed particularly to address RPA 183.
Comment:
This project would establish a data base for habitat projects funded through BPA and other funding sources. The data base would try to assign specific benefits to each project by either life stage or habitat improvement using habitat surrogates for biological response. Once the data base had been developed and accepted, discussion could ensue as to possible crediting of benefits to BPA for actions taken. For this project to be successful, regional buy-in to the process is mandatory. Unless all habitat projects (BPA funded or not) are entered into the eventual database, it will not be possible to assign benefits to individual activities. There appears to be significant overlap with other database projects and the regional RM&E project currently being recommended in the Fish and Wildlife Program.Comment:
Fundable (qualified). Disagree with CBFWA's Do Not Fund ranking. This proposal outlines work designed to ensure that mitigation projects make a positive, measurable contribution towards salmon recovery, that BPA receives credit for its efforts, and that additional mitigation opportunities and constraints are identified and communicated to fish and wildlife managers and the public. The response is complete, adequately addressing ISRP review comments. However, we raise the same concern with this project that we have indicated for the RME program in terms of duplication and fragmentation of effort. An entirely new database system for habitat projects is being proposed. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that there is extensive overlap with #35033 and that to be successful this project would have to have regional buy-in. The project contains good ideas that would enhance the scientific credibility of the monitoring data. If funded, this project should be coordinated with other monitoring projects to ensure compatibility of objectives, common methods and protocols. This coordination could be accomplished under the favorably reviewed CBFWA project #35033.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitIndirect. Project is to assist BPA in meeting its habitat mitigation obligation as specified under RPAs 180 and 183 in the FCRPS Biological Opinion.
Comments
The AA/NMFS RM&E workgroup states that this proposal is not relevant to RPA 180 and 183 because it doesn't address monitoring or implementation of specific projects as identified under those RPAs in the BiOp. Rather it requests funds to develop a programmatic structure.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Comment:
Category:3. Other projects not recommended by staff
Comments: