FY 2000 proposal 199703400

Additional documents

TitleType
199703400 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMonitor Fine Sediment and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers
Proposal ID199703400
OrganizationColumbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJon Rhodes, Hydrologist
Mailing address729 NE Oregon, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97232
Phone / email5037311307 / rhoj@critfc.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionMonitor 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 speciesSpring chinook salmon
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
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 2000 costSubcontractor
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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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]