FY 2000 proposal 20024
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Fall Chinook Natural Production and Spawning Habitat Conditions in the Tucannon River |
| Proposal ID | 20024 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Joseph D. Bumgarner |
| Mailing address | 401 S. Cottonwood Dayton, WA 99328 |
| Phone / email | 5093824755 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Tucannon |
| Short description | Assess fall chinook natural production and the potential for hatchery supplementation. Document sedimentation of fall chinook redds and estimate survival of eggs within redds. Capture, identify, enumerate and calculate survivals for migrating sub-yearl |
| Target species | Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| 9401806 |
Tucannon River model watershed program |
Provide a habitat assessment baseline |
| 9401807 |
Pataha Creek model watershed program |
Provide a habitat assessment baseline |
| 9801003 |
Monitor and evaluate the spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook. |
Cooperative effort between agencies to document Snake River fall chinook spawning. |
| 9102900 |
Life History and Survival of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basi |
Life history and survival estimates from outside the Snake River Basin. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Three technician 2's (one 3 months, two 4 months each), One Biologist 3 (4 months) and one full time |
$53,100 |
| Fringe |
28.5% for state WDFW employees and 1.0% for graduate student. |
$11,470 |
| Supplies |
Freeze core sampler, turbidimeter, material to build redd caps, genetic analysis (juvenile and adult |
$21,900 |
| Operating |
vehicle and smolt trap maintenance |
$1,500 |
| Capital |
None |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
1,300 |
$3,770 |
| Travel |
Vehicle leasing at 250/month and 1000 miles/month x $0.31 x 6 months |
$3,360 |
| Indirect |
Washington State overhead at 22.5%
Graduate Student overhead at 31.5% |
$25,587 |
| Other |
None |
$0 |
| $120,687 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $120,687 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $120,687 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| LSRCP |
smolt trap, computers, office space, phone, PIT tag equipment, additional personnel time, travel and vehicle operation and maintenance |
$45,000 |
unknown |
| Columbia Garfield County Conservation Districts (Tucannon and Pataha Model Watersheds) |
Temperature recorders (5), ISCO sediment samplers (3) |
$11,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: During some years, extreme river flows may preclude successful spawning ground surveys and proposed monitoring of those redds over time. In addition, high spring runoff may hinder our attempts to cap redds and trap juvenile migrants. Until we formally request a Section 10 Permit modification, NMFS may prevent us from capping or disturbing natural fall chinook redds in the Tucannon River, as eggs within each redd are listed as “threatened” under the ESA. If our permit modification is rejected, results from artificial redds (created as natural as possible without using egg baskets) will have to be utilized. Even then, redd capping efforts may be futile against heavy spring runoffs. Because this project is not scheduled to begin until 2000, WDFW has time to request any changes in our research permit.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Delay funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Delay funding until deficiencies are corrected. Objective 2, 3, and 6 might be technically and programmatically justified, and a revised proposal that addressed only these elements might be fundable (at something less than 50% of the currently proposed project cost). Objective 1 has low probability of success, and Objective 4 already appears to have been addressed by other investigators (Category 1d).
Comments:
This is a proposal for new work to assess sedimentation of fall chinook redds and estimate outmigration of subyearlings. The problem noted is that most salmon carcasses recovered from fall chinook redds in the lower Tucannon River are unmarked, and it is known that many fall chinook in the area are strays. Therefore, the motivation for the study seems to be to answer whether fall chinook strays spawn successfully. The panel felt that objective 1, to determine the fate of redds, has little chance of success. The author acknowledges that high sedimentation precludes egg to alevin survival; is it really necessary to try to document poor survival (with a very low chance of success), or is it more prudent to accept poor survival as consensus and move ahead? The proposal also identifies a number of habitat issues in the lower Tucannnon associated with agricultural practices, and it appears that the project would really be a habitat survey of some kind. The problems of determining the viability of the natural population, potential for supplementation, and habitat restoration potential are no doubt linked. However, the integration is not well addressed in this proposal. Furthermore, to the extent that this is a habitat project, it has not addressed the question of prior watershed analysis, as required in the Request for Proposal, and on this basis alone, should be given a low priority for funding. If the proposers decide to resubmit in the future, they need to either focus the project more clearly, or develop a better and more convincing argument that they can address the breadth of issues raised. Qualifications of the PI appear to be primarily in the fisheries area, if habitat issues are to be addressed, expertise in habitat science would need to be added to the project team. Finally, the information transfer plan is weak. More than just a promise for publication of results "if possible" in refereed journals is necessary.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes -
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];