FY 2000 proposal 199703400
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Monitor Fine Sediment and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers |
| Proposal ID | 199703400 |
| Organization | Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jon Rhodes, Hydrologist |
| Mailing address | 729 NE Oregon, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97232 |
| Phone / email | 5037311307 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Monitor surface fine sediment and and overwinter sedimentation in cleaned gravel in spawning habits in the Grande Ronde and North Fork John Day rivers, analyze potential trends, investigate potential relationships in data, and relate to salmon survival. |
| Target species | Spring 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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1998 |
We were notified that submission of an aritcle summarizing results of previous unfunded work similar to the project was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed proceedings. |
| 1998 |
Biological assessment completed and consultation with NMFS concluded with letter concurring that the project was unlikely to adversely affect spring/summer chinook or their habitat. |
| 1998 |
Surface fine data collected in four reaches in Grande Ronde and John Day Rivers and containers of cleaned gravels emplaced in streambed excavated to mimic salmon redds, prior to the onset of salmon spawning. |
| 1998 |
Mid-winter collection of previously emplaced containers of gravels for particle size analysis and determination of level of mid-winter sedimentation of fine sediments. |
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 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 |
Project leader for 3 mo. @ $4,121/mo; Technician for 1 mo. @ $2500/mo |
$14,863 |
| Fringe |
31.5% of salaries |
$4,682 |
| Supplies |
Field forms, sample markers and containers, film |
$66 |
| Operating |
postage, photocopying, film processing |
$380 |
| Travel |
vehicle rental, per diem, lodging, fuel |
$1,144 |
| Indirect |
37.9% of personnel, supplies, operations and maintenance and travel |
$8,010 |
| Subcontractor |
M.D. Purser, Hydrologist |
$3,000 |
| $32,145 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $32,145 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $32,145 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| BPA |
Total Project |
$32,145 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: High flows or late snowfall may cause seasonal delays in sample retrievals at some sites. If project is not funded by 8/2000, emplacement of cleaned gravel samples prior to spawning will not occur, precluding measurement of overwinter sedimentation.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund. OK for a multi-year review cycle with high priority. The project should be reviewed at the midpoint, FY2002, for reporting of results.
Comments:
This five-year study appears to relate to goals of other resource-related organizations in the Basin. Its expected results should be able to integrate readily with other John Day projects, although five years may be too little time to address all of the stated goals and objectives. It is unclear whether the number and variety of sites chosen for the study provide the range of potentially important variables in order to successfully model their relationships to sedimentation.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are:
The proposal should identify how many sites and monitored reaches are intended for the study, and on what basis they were selected. One reviewer seeks assurance that ten gravel containers placed in simulated redds (at least two to be collected in mid-winter) are adequate to ensure detection of statistically significant sedimentation rates. Are the same simulated redds to be used during the five-year study period to assure comparability?
The proposal could benefit as well from an assessment of the relative importance of the sources of fine sediments encountered in the study sites. Lacking this information, it will be difficult to know how to further remedy conditions in the watershed if the five-year trend indicates that sedimentation is increasing. Similarly, if conditions improve, it will be difficult to know which remediation actions are responsible and should be amplified or applied elsewhere. In fairness, the author(s) note that this would require a substantially expanded effort and budget.
To determine the most cost-effective approach in measuring over-winter sedimentation, the author(s) plan to use regression analysis to model the relationship. There is only limited explanation, however, of which variables are to be evaluated in influencing the relationship (flow velocity, substrate type, gradient, river width and depth, etc.). The proposal would benefit from further detail on how salmon egg survival is to be estimated. The experimental design might be improved by including valid sampling procedures of two strata (heavily impacted sections of the two rivers and not heavily impacted) as opposed to the method proposed: That is, a comparison between a relatively unimpacted area of the John Day with heavily impacted sections of the John Day and Grande Ronde might provide important comparisons as well as the range of variables required for regression modeling.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Well written proposal that fills an identified data gap.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]