FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200203700
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 |
|---|---|
| 25093 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25093 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 200203700 Powerpoint Presentation: 2003 Update | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Characterize Genetic Differences and Distribution of Freshwater Mussels |
| Proposal ID | 200203700 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Gary James |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 638 Pendleton Oregon 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5419662371 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gary James |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description | Conduct freshwater mussel surveys to assess their status and test for geographical genetic differences among the western pearlshell mussel, Margaritifera falcata. |
| Target species | Freshwater Mussels |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Project ranges from the mouth of the Umatilla River to Headwaters | ||
| Headwaters of the Umatilla River Basin to the East | ||
| Headwaters of the Umatilla River Basin to the South | ||
| Headwaters of the Umatilla River Basin to the West | ||
| Entire Middle Fork John Day Basin | ||
| Middle Fork John Day River at Mouth | ||
| Middle Fork John Day River at Phipps Meadows | ||
| 45.71 | -118.34 | Umatilla River |
| 45.7318 | -120.6499 | John Day River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| N/A New Project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9000501 | Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation | This project is part of the overall goal to recover an intact, fully functioning, salmonid producing river in the Umatilla River. The CTUIR has numerous projects focusing on recovery of the Umatilla River Basin for salmonids and other species, such as |
| 8373600 | Umatilla Passage Facility Operations and Maintenance | Pacific lampreys. The restoration project for the Pacific lampreys has the closest relationship to this project, because both focus on restoration of species that require healthly salmon populations for their persistence. |
| 8802200 | Umatilla Fish Passage Operations | |
| 9506000 | Pacific Lamprey Research and Restoration | |
| 8710001 | Umatilla Fish Habitat Enhancement |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design 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 Planning and Design phase
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. Assess the status of freshwater mussels in the Umatilla and Middle Fork John Day rivers | a. Determine sampling locations. | 1 | $8,000 | |
| 1. | b. Conduct mussel surveys | 5 | $203,977 | |
| 1. | c. Analyze data | 3 | $5,000 | |
| 2. Test for genetic differences | a. Collect samples | 3 | $5,000 | |
| 2. | b. Develop microsatellite DNA primers ($2500/primer x 8 primers) | 3 | $24,700 | Yes |
| 2. | c. Characterize microsatellite DNA genotypes ($50/fish x 60 fish/samples x 6 samples) | 6 | $22,230 | Yes |
| 2. | d. Develop mitochondial DNA primers | $20,000 | Yes | |
| 2. | e. Characterize mitochondial DNA variation | $15,000 | Yes | |
| 2. | f. Analyze results (0.05 FTE) | 2 | $3,000 | |
| 3. Complete final report to funding agency | a. Write final report (0.05 FTE) | 2 | $3,000 | |
| 4. Publish results in scientific journal | a. Submit manuscript for review (page charges @ $100/page + reprints) | 1 | $2,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Assess the status of freshwater mussels in the Umatilla and Middle Fork John Day rivers | 2003 | 2006 | $867,908 |
| 2. Test for genetic differences | 2003 | 2003 | $86,930 |
| 3. Complete final report to funding agency | 2003 | 2006 | $24,000 |
| 4. Publish results in scientific journal | 2003 | 2006 | $8,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $343,097 | $377,406 | $415,146 | $456,660 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.0 project leader, 1.0 Fish Bio II, 1.0 Fish Tech, 0.5 fish techs (temps) | $117,600 |
| Fringe | 30% full-time; 19% temps | $34,488 |
| Supplies | 6 wet suits and gear @$500/person, 4 hand held GPS units @ $350/each, Laser level @ $2000,Field mat. | $7,000 |
| Travel | Lease vehicles x 2, site visits per diem | $20,000 |
| Indirect | 34% of personnel, supplies and travel | $60,889 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | Genetics Laboratory | $71,930 |
| Other | $0 | |
| $311,907 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $311,907 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $311,907 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission | 0.10 FTE for Dr. Kenneth Currens | $6,000 | in-kind |
| U.S. Forest Service | 0.24 for John Sanchez and USFS techs. | $7,000 | 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. They should discuss focusing goals and objectives on practical applications. What are the limiting factors on mussels? Food supply? What life history stage is limited? How might abundance be increased?
The proposal was well-prepared and well-presented. PI's look very qualified for the type of work proposed. Objectives are straightforward, well-described as are the associated tasks. Good linkages to regional planning documents, FWP, and to general ecosystem principles. While these are commendable in an academic sort of approach to obtaining basic information about mussels, information which might have importance in management decisions, the primary goal of the project to restore harvestable populations of mussels should not be obscured. It would be well to enlarge upon the tasks, and evaluation of results that relate directly to this goal.
One of the attractive aspects of the proposal is the planned genetics work at the regional level, which will survey genetic variation among mussel populations throughout the Columbia River basin. We note that one possible outcome, as discussed in the text (p. 4), is that the populations will be found to be undifferentiated. A survey at this scale (as is also proposed for Pacific lamprey) will likely provide important information that will bear on decisions about management units, reintroduction efforts, supplementation efforts (if they are initiated), and population structure.
Comment:
Historically, freshwater mussels were an important subsistence species for the CTUIR. However, mussel populations have declined and as a result mussels can no longer be used for purposes of subsistence. Mussels have been listed as candidate species in the Willamette River. However, little, if anything, is known about freshwater mussel distribution, abundance and habitat quality east of the Cascades. The ODFW suggests that there is a need to initiate this type of work. The reviewers recommend that preliminary genetic analyses should be limited to mtDNA (RFLPs) analyses. Microsatellite analyses should only be used if mtDNA data are not conclusive.Comment:
Fundable in part to do the distribution work. The response was too brief and addressed the ISRP concerns superficially. The reviewers were not convinced that this was the right approach to addressing mussel issues. The reviewers recommend that the distribution work be done with a solid experimental design testing several hypotheses including fish presence, sedimentation, habitat degradation, and overexploitation. The genetic work, while well-designed and appropriate to test whether one or multiple populations exist, can be conducted at a later date after the distribution and ecological hypothesis testing are complete. Because of the expected low abundance of mussels, however, tissue samples should be collected throughout the study as populations are encountered.The proposed study, while thorough, seems to be one of relatively high-cost asking for nearly $2 million over its proposed 5-year duration. It is worth asking if the major objectives of the study can be achieved with a lesser amount and a shorter study duration?
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? N/A
Biop? no
Comment:
Characterize genetic differences and distribution of freshwater mussels, Project 25093
ISRP provided a Fund In Part recommendation for the distribution work submitted in Proposal 25093. CBFWA rated the entire project as High Priority. Thus, the Council has a consensus recommendation for the distribution portion of the proposal.
Staff Recommendation: Freshwater mussels were an important subsistence species for the CTUIR. Given the cultural significance of the freshwater mussels and the lack of any knowledge base as to their population levels and distribution, staff recommends funding the distribution work proposed in the study.
Budget effect on base program (Project 25093):
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| Increase $220,000 | Increase $228,000 | Increase $237,000 |
Comment:
Comment:
Delayed start, requesting modification to spend out balance for this year. 05 represents a 3.4% increase for COLA.Comment:
In FY 03 CTUIR is seeking an increase of $9,509 to cover previous years of unfunded increases in Indirect rates. FY 03 Sponsor Recommended level would increase to from $228,000 to $237,509. Previous year budgets were submitted with a 34% Indirect rate because the Department of Interior hadn't yet issued new approved rates for BPA to consider. Unfunded 2002 Indirect Rate Increase @ 37.2% = $418. Unfunded 2003 Indirect Rate Increase @ 39.64% = $9,027.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $237,000 | $237,000 | $237,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website