FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 31031

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleClatsop County Fisheries Restoration Project
Proposal ID31031
OrganizationClatsop County's Clatsop Economic Development Council Fisheries Project (CEDC) (CEDC Fisheries)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTod Jones
Mailing address2001 Marine Dr. Rm. 253 Astoria, Or. 97103
Phone / email5033256452 / tjones@co.clatsop.or.us
Manager authorizing this projectTod Jones
Review cycleLower Columbia
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Columbia Lower
Short descriptionRecolonize eight Columbia River tributaries in Clatsop County with appropriate stocks of winter run coho and chum salmon using otolith-marked eyed eggs out-planted in natal streams where remnant runs exist, or using introduced stocks when necessary.
Target speciesChum and winter run coho
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
46.0909 -123.7441 Klaskanine Hatchery
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
9.6.4.3
9.6.5.3.4
9.6.5

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
190002134 Select Area Fisheries Evaluation Sharing staff to conduct stock assessments and habitat analysis as well as captive broodstock rearing.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Stock assessment in eight streams of Clatsop County. a. Weekly stream surveys in Lewis & Clark, North Fork Klaskanine, South Fork Klaskanine, Bear Creek, Ferris Creek, Little Creek, Big Creek, and Gnat Creek to identify incidence of non-hatchery winter coho and chum spawners. 2002-2003 $7,700
2. Assessment of spawning and rearing habitat a. Survey and map eight targeted streams to evaluate and enumerate spawning gravel and rearing for habitat for both species 2002-2003 $9,900
3. Evaluation of sub-surface a. Hyporheic zone analysis using Salmon Egg Planting Device and freeze core sampling to quantify composition of cobble, gravel, and organic and inorganic fines 2002-2003 $16,500 Yes
4. Identify appropriate stocks for use as brood stock a. Consultation with NMFS and ODFW after stock assessments to determine if natal stocks are present or if introduced from outside each watershed 2003 $1,650
5. Central incubation facility a. Design water filtration system to provide incubation water with particulates not to exceed 2 microns. 2003 $5,500
b. Design isolation incubation to separate gametes from each stream 2003 $5,500
c. Design temperature control system to affect otolith marking 2003 $5,500
6. Adult and juvenile retention a. Design weir and trap system to hold adults for ripening and spawning 2003 $5,500
b. Design and identify locations for out-migrant fry/smolts for enumeration and data capture 2003 $5,500
7. Captive brood program a. Rear 3,000 coho smolts to gravid adults in two estuary sites and one fresh water site, using South Fork Klaskanine early-run stocks. 2002-2003 $5,500
b. Evaluate strategies and sites for future use 2002-2003 $5,500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
5. Central incubation facility a. Install water filtration system 2003 $35,000 Yes
b. Install isolation mist incubation 2003 $20,000 Yes
c. Acquire egg transport and handling equipment 2003 $50,000 Yes
d. Install thermal units for otolith marking 2003 $25,000 Yes
6. Adult and juvenile retention a. Install weirs and holding pens in four streams 2003 $50,000 Yes
b. Install juvenile traps in four streams 2003 $50,000 Yes
7. Captive brood program a. Install two 40'X40' HDPE net pens with barrier nets in estuary sites 2003 $70,000 Yes
b. Install raceways at CEDC South Fork hatchery for fresh water system 2003 $70,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
7. Captive brood program a. Continued rearing and evaluation of coho and chum brood as appropriate 2004-2007 $0
8. Brood stock collection a. capture adults at weirs for gamete collection 2003-2006 $2,200
b. Collect gametes and transport to central incubation facility for fertilization, incubation and otolith marking 2003-2006 $4,400
c. Shock and remove dead eggs at eye stage 2003-2006 $4,400
9. Out-planting eggs a. Transport eyed eggs to natal stream for planting 2004-2007 $0
b. Plant eyed eggs with Salmon Planting Device 2004-2007 $0
c. Cover redds with vexar coated wire mesh to prevent superimpostion or scouring 2004-2007 $0
d. Monitor swim-up fry using fish netting 2004-2007 $0
e. Evaluate abundance and k-factor 2004-2007 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
7. Captive brood program 2004 2007 $200,000
8. Brood Stock collection 2004 2006 $30,000
9. Out-planting eggs 2004 2007 $60,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$75,000$75,000$75,000$65,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
10. Monitor rearing and outmigration a. Quarterly surveys to monitor abundance and k-factor of coho fingerlings 2004-2007 $0
b. Evaluate chum outmigration through juvenile trap enumeration and k-factor 2004-2007 $0
11. Ongoing evaluation a. Data collection and reporting from each life stage 2004-2007 $0
b. Consultation with NMFS and ODFW 2004-2007 $0
c. Project adjustments as needed 2004-2007 $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
10. Monitor rearing and outmigration 2004 2007 $60,000
11. Ongoing evaluation 2004 2007 $12,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2004FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$18,000$18,000$18,000$18,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel FTE: 1.0 $36,000
Fringe 50% $18,000
Supplies $8,500
Indirect 10% $7,750
Capital 0 $370,000
Subcontractor $15,000
$455,250
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$455,250
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$455,250
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Reason for change in estimated budget

NA

Reason for change in scope

NA

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
CEDC Fisheries personal services, stream surveys, travel $20,000 in-kind
Bio-Oregon, Inc. personal services, brood stock feed $25,000 in-kind
Familian Industrial Plastics net-pen flotation $2,500 in-kind
Willamette Industries To be determined $0 cash
Local commercial fishermen labor $5,000 in-kind
Other budget explanation

Capital costs for the project are only preliminary and need refinement once results of winter surveys are complete.We will be seeking private and federal founding for out-year budgets.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

Not fundable. This proposal would recolonize 8 Columbia River tributaries in Clatsop County with winter-run coho and chum. It will initiate a captive brood stock program to evaluate sites for rearing coho. The primary strategy will be to out-plant eyed eggs from a central incubation facility (Klaskanine Hatchery) to various reaches of selected streams. Otolith mass marking will be done during early incubation. Egg planting will be done using a method developed in Alaska in the 1980's. Eight Clatsop County streams will be surveyed in 2002-2003 for remnants of late-run coho and chum. Streams will also be evaluated for the suitability as spawning and rearing habitat. The progression of outplanted eggs will be monitored. The proposal seeks funding from federal, state and private sources. The BPA request is for 50%.

Young's Bay historically supported a strong population of chum, and there is likely some value in getting chum into these systems, but this proposal is not adequate to the research need.

The salmon egg planting device (gas powered water pump pushing water through pipe into gravel, eyed eggs introduced into stream) was developed and used with mixed success in Alaska in the 1980's. None of the performance history of the device is reviewed in the proposal.

The objectives and tasks are presented in abbreviated form. The proposal is vague about the techniques of egg planting and of thermal marking. The proposal says nothing about the methods of recovery of marked fish and includes no budget for thermal marking. Even if the number of embryos is modest the cost of energy (fuel oil) for marking will not be small.

The captive broodstock part of the project is poorly developed. No one has ever been successful rearing chum salmon to maturity in captivity, and the proposal does not suggest how the proponents intend to do it. The fish are susceptible to vibrio.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

This project aggressively relies on unproven technologies.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Not fundable. This proposal would recolonize 8 Columbia River tributaries in Clatsop County with winter-run coho and chum and would initiate a captive brood stock program to evaluate sites for rearing coho. Young's Bay historically supported a strong population of chum, and there is likely some value in getting chum into these systems, but this proposal is not adequate to the research need. The salmon egg planting device (gas powered water pump pushing water through pipe into gravel, eyed eggs introduced into stream) was developed and used with mixed success in Alaska in the 1980's. None of the performance history of the device is reviewed in the proposal. The objectives and tasks are presented only in abbreviated form. The proposal is vague about the techniques of egg planting and of thermal marking. The proposal says nothing about the methods of recovery of marked fish and includes no budget for thermal marking. Even if the number of embryos is modest the cost of energy (fuel oil) for marking will not be small. The captive broodstock part of the project is poorly developed. No one has ever been successful rearing chum salmon to maturity in captivity, and the proposal does not suggest how the proponents intend to do it.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
If successful, could restore Columbia River Chum salmon to historical spawning areas in Columbia County, OR.

Comments
Captive brood techniques uncertain for chum and coho (have chum or coho ever been raised to adult stage?) Question whether the stock of coho that are part of the captive brood project are an early run hatchery stock or a later run wild component.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Recommend not funding at this time. Consideration of NMFS approved Safety Net projects should await results of the planning phase of the SNAPP process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: