FY 2000 proposal 20109
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Cedar Creek Natural Production and Watershed Monitoring Project |
| Proposal ID | 20109 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dan Rawding |
| Mailing address | 2108 Grand Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98661 |
| Phone / email | 3609066747 / rawdidr@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| Short description | Estimate juvenile production and adult escapement for coho, cutthroat, steelhead, chinook, and possibly lamprey to support local watershed restoration projects and recovery of fish populations listed under the Endangered Species Act. |
| Target species | coho salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat, chinook salmon, chum salmon, and pacific lamprey |
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 |
|---|
| 9600800 |
PATH-Participation by State and Tribal agencies |
Provide wild salmon and steelhead escapement, smolt production, freshwater and marine survival for below Bonneville populations |
| 9145 |
Evaluate the Status of Columbia River Sea-run Cutthroat |
Provide cutthroat scale and genetic samples |
| 9800100 |
Analytical Support-PATH & ESA Biological Opinions |
Provide wild salmon and steelhead escapement, smolt production, freshwater and marine survival for below Bonneville populations |
| 960400 |
Evaluate the feasibility and risk of coho salmon reintroduction in the Mid- |
Provides information on success/or failure of coho salmon rebuilding and potentially a wild donor stock |
| 9005200 |
Performance/Stock Productivity Impacts of Hatchery Supplementation |
Address coho supplementation to be compared with steelhead and chinook in 9005200 |
|
Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project |
Provides information on the success/or failure of Coho rebuilding and potentially a wild donor stock |
| 9104 |
Conduct baseline habitat and population dynamics studies on lamprey in Ceda |
Collect adult and juvenile lamprey data to support this project |
| 20543 |
Coded Wire Tag Program |
|
| 8906600 |
Annual Stock Assessment - Tagging Program (WDFW) |
|
| 8906900 |
Annual Stock Assessment - Tagging Program (ODFW) |
|
| 8906500 |
Annual Stock Assessment - Tagging Program (USFWS) |
|
| 8201300 |
Coded Wire Tag Recovery Program (PSMFC) |
|
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 |
|
$57,946 |
| Fringe |
|
$19,702 |
| Supplies |
|
$6,620 |
| Operating |
|
$6,000 |
| Capital |
|
$74,000 |
| Travel |
|
$6,480 |
| Indirect |
|
$18,651 |
| Subcontractor |
USFWS |
$36,500 |
| $225,899 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $225,899 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $225,899 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Fish First |
riparian fencing and planting |
$0 |
unknown |
| Clark County Conservation District |
riparian fencing and planting |
$0 |
unknown |
| Clark County |
culvert repair |
$0 |
unknown |
| WDFW |
personnel |
$0 |
unknown |
| USFWS |
equip supply & and personnel |
$0 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Assumptions are made that we will continue to have landowner access and support for surveys and juvenile trapping. NMFS will continue to issue permits for work.
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.
Comments:
This is an excellent proposal, comprehensive and persuasive, and a logical candidate for long-term funding. Cedar Creek appears to be a high-priority site for a monitoring project, given existing activities by other agencies. Further, monitoring would be facilitated by the opportunity to trap upstream-migrating adults in this basin. There exists evidence of good cooperation with local landowners and significant financial support from sources other than BPA. The listed objectives and methods for their achievement appear quite valid. Biological information sought in this proposal should be very valuable.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are:
To meet Objective No. 5, would production of juveniles (supplemented) by, say, the modified Hankin and Reeves survey procedures (rather than by use of traps at three locations) yield more information on distribution and habitat? A question arises with regard to the goal of monitoring fish stocks in Cedar Creek for the purpose of evaluating fish response to a large number of recently enacted measures to improve habitat, reduce harvest rates and foster genetic diversity. The monitoring should be effective in assessing the sum total of these actions, but it will be difficult to use the results in an adaptive management context, one that will enable them "to apply success(ful) strategies and not repeat our failures in other subbasins." With so many restoration activities in progress in the basin, there are no specific mechanisms proposed to examine the effects of individual actions. The ISRP was impressed with this proposal and strongly recommends it for funding.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - Duration/agency management needs more explanationProgrammatic Criteria 2: Met? no - Objectives are not clearly defined.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - Appeared to be under-staffed for workload
Resource Criteria 4: Met? no - Appears to simply be a new funding source for state program
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Work Group technical concerns. #1-collects basic info needed for watershed assessment. #3-in the past. #6- if effective. Basic monitoring that would serve as basis for watershed assessment. Would continue an ongoing, but unfunded effort.
Recommendation:
Rank 9
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
Rank Comments:
Cedar Creek is a high-priority site for a monitoring project to evaluate response to multiple restoration activities. Although somewhat site-specific, evidence of success of the Cedar Creek projects would be of benefit beyond the watershed. The proposal is of very high quality and was strongly endorsed in the initial ISRP review.
Recommendation:
Rank 9
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
Cedar Creek is a high-priority site for a monitoring project to evaluate response to multiple restoration activities. Although somewhat site-specific, evidence of success of the Cedar Creek projects would be of benefit beyond the watershed. The proposal is of very high quality and was strongly endorsed in the initial ISRP review.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];