Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | South Fork Clearwater, Selway, and Salmon River Basins Monitoring and Evaluation of Spring / Summer Chinook Salmon Outplant Program |
| Proposal ID | 200105900 |
| Organization | S.P. Cramer & Associates (SPCA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Steve Cramer |
| Mailing address | 39330 Proctor Blvd. Sandy, OR 97055 |
| Phone / email | 5038269858 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Ken Witty |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Conduct spawner survey of outplanted chinook salmon to determine spawner distribution, spawner ratio of hatchery to wild fish, and number of redds per fish stocked. |
| Target species | Spring / Summer Chinook Salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.13 |
-115.97 |
S. Fork Clearwater River and selected tributaries, spawning surveys |
| 46.07 |
-114.87 |
Selway River and selected tributaries, spawning surveys |
| 44.43 |
-116.32 |
Salmon River and selected tributaries, spawning surveys |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Determine spawning distribution |
a. Perform adult chinook spawning ground surveys |
1 |
$0 |
|
| 2. Determine ratio of hatchery versus wild fish |
a. Perform adult chinook spawning ground surveys and identify hatchery versus wild |
1 |
$0 |
|
| 3. Determine the spawner density |
a. Determine number of redds per fish stocked per area |
1 |
$0 |
|
| 4. Determine spawning period |
a. Perform adult chinook spawning ground surveys 3 different times |
1 |
$0 |
|
| all tasks performed simultaneously |
|
1 |
$75,200 |
|
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 5 |
$59,000 |
| Fringe |
per diem |
$5,000 |
| Supplies |
Horses |
$2,500 |
| Indirect |
communication |
$500 |
| PIT tags |
# of tags: aerial fly overs |
$3,200 |
| Subcontractor |
milage vehicles |
$5,000 |
| $75,200 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $75,200 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $75,200 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $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.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - inadequate proposal
Date:
Jun 21, 2001
Comment:
Not fundable; inadequate proposal. This proposal would conduct spawning ground surveys of chinook to aid in out planting (in some undefined way). The proposal could be fleshed out in significantly more detail and become fundable as a good and useful research project, but it does not fit the current solicitation. The proposal fails to show that the work would provide immediate, direct, on-the-ground benefits enhance Idaho chinook in future. The proposal provides almost no detail on locations, methods, and relationship to other projects. Resumes of personnel are included and are informative. Probably the most glaring omission from the proposal was the lack of described linkages to other ongoing projects in the Clearwater and Salmon River subbasins. Surely there are some projects that are monitoring spawner returns in these subbasins. How would this additional funding and work integrate with those projects?
The Mountain Snake Province, including the Clearwater subbasin, solicitation is currently open for submittals of proposals, and this proposal might be rewritten and resubmitted.
Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Aug 3, 2001
Comment:
This project is for monitoring and evaluation and as such does not meet the solicitation criteria for immediate, direct on-the-ground benefits. The Action Plan solicitation states,"Proposals should clearly identify any required funding for ... monitoring and evaluation. Any funding of this sort that would be requested of BPA must be submitted for consideration in the appropriate Northwest Power Planning Council Provincial Review." Given this language, the ISRP found several other monitoring projects as "not fundable" under the Action Plan solicitation in our June 21 Report.
Notwithstanding the solicitation language, the response clearly addressed the ISRP's questions from the initial proposal review and appears technically sound. Uncertainty remains as to the exact locations and numbers of fish for the out plantings, but the response acknowledges this and describes a general survey protocol that will be sufficient. The response also lists a number of pertinent questions to be addressed through the surveys, which could provide useful information on hatchery-wild fish interactions. The questions this project proposes to address are important ones, and if large-scale out planting will occur (or has already occurred), then it would be negligent not to investigate the effects, as this project proposes to do.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 14, 2001
Comment:
Proposal 26019 is one of two companion proposals that Bonneville proposed to add to the Councils' previous list of fundable projects. It provides the monitoring component for Proposal 26013. Bonneville staff informed the Council that Bonneville is discussing the applicability of this proposal for Biological Opinion implementation and plans to include the proposal in its final funding list, subject to the ISRP's comments. The ISRP's final report reiterated its lack of support for the proposed approach. The proposal was submitted following a negotiation of treatment of surplus hatchery-origin adults this year. It was developed in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Council decided to support funding assistance for implementing the agreement in concert with the monitoring and evaluation provided by Proposal 26019. The Council believes the provision of monitoring addresses a portion of the ISRP's technical concerns while recognizing that funding of the out planting itself is not supported by the ISRP.
