Return to Proposal Finder FY 2003 Lower Columbia Proposal 200105300

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget Summary

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek
BPA Project Proposal Number 200105300
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Business acronym (if appropriate) PSMFC/WDFW
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Steve Schroder
Mailing Address 600 Capital Way North, MS: 43200
City, State, Zip Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone 3609022751
Fax 3609022994
E-mail schrosls@dfw.wa.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Joe Hymer - PSMFC, Dan Rawding - WDFW
 
Review Cycle Lower Columbia
Province Lower Columbia
Subbasin Columbia Lower
 
Short Description Monitor and evaluate the success of the recently restored spawning channels for chum salmon at Duncan Creek. If necessary, jump start the population by collecting brood stock from adjacent populations.
Target Species Chum Salmon


Project Location

Latitude Longitude Description
Duncan Creek, approximate River Mile 140


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

RPA
157
177
15

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

This information comes from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) reviews of this project proposal. The following table represents BPA & NMFS determinations as to this proposal's relevance to particular Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs).

Reviewing Agency Action Number BiOp Agency Description
NMFS/BPA Action 156 NMFS The Action Agencies and NMFS shall study the feasibility (including both biological benefits and ecological risks) of habitat modification to improve spawning conditions for chum salmon in the Ives Island area.


Information Transfer

The expected outcomes of this project are:
Quantitative

Data generated by this project are:
Primary

Are there restrictions on the use of this data?
None

Where do the data reside?
Private/Managed Locally:

Printed

Public Access: [no information]


In what other ways will information from this project be transferred or used?

To recover Lower Columbia River chum salmon populations, signifcant habitat alterations will have to occur. This proposal will ascertain whether collecting adult brood stock from genetically similar stocks into newly restored habitat significantly accelerates the establishment of a self-sustaining population or whether simple recolonization by strays is sufficient. Thus, what is discovered at Duncan Creek may have profound effects on how chum recovery throughout the Lower Columbia transpires.


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
2000 Using other funding sources including a landowner self-assessment, modify the dam to allow free fish passage.
2001 1,700 linear feet of spawning habitat for chum salmon is restored at Duncan Creek
2001 Up to 60 pairs of adult chum salmon are collected and spawned from the mainstem Columbia and its tributaries near Ives Island for re-introduction into Duncan Creek, either by artificial or natural spawning.
2001 Equipment is purchased to thermally mark the resulting fry.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description
199900301 Evaluate Spawning of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Just Below the Four Lowermost Mainstem Columbia Dams One goal of that project is to perform intensive spawning ground surveys for chum salmon habitat and opportunities for restoration. The Duncan Creek project will provide valuable information for those efforts.
200001200 Evaluate Factors Limiting Columbia River Gorge Chum Salmon Populations The primary purpose of that project is to evaluate factors limiting chum salmon production in Hamilton and Hardy creeks plus the mainstem Columbia. The Duncan Creek project will expand the coverage into that system.
StreamNet The Duncan Creek project will provide biological data that can be incorporated into the StreamNet database.


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

n/a or no information


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Design and construct a temporary adult collection weir at Duncan Creek so returning adults can be enumerated and either spawned naturally or artificially. a. Develop walkway to weir. b. Design adult collection weir so the trap can be moved in the event of high water and removed after the trapping season. c. Construct the temporary rack. 1 $ 20,400 x
2. At Duncan Creek, develop permanent power, water, and phone source plus alarm and backup system for incubation of eggs, marking of the eggs/fry and rearing of fry from the artificially spawned adults. a. Provide permanent water source with alarm and backup supply system for Remote Site Incubators and rearing troughs. b. Provide power source for chillers to thermally mark eggs/fry. 1 $ 51,000 x
3. At Duncan Creek, purchase equipment for incubation of eggs from the artificially spawned adults. a. Purchase three 55 gal.Remote Site Incubators, plumbing, and alarm system 1 $ 11,098  
4. At Duncan Creek, purchase equipment for rearing of artificially produced fry. a. Purchase eight fiberglass raceways (3 feet wide, 3 feet deep and 16 feet long) flex hose, valves, plumbing, etc. 1 $ 24,150  
5. At Duncan Creek, purchase equipment to estimate fry production from natural spawning a. Purchase five Fyke nets (1/8" knotless nylon webbing with a coating to protect the net from UV damage and construct 5 collection boxes (constructed using marine grade plywood and supplied with Styrofoam logs for floatation. 1 $ 2,156  
6. Install security devices at Duncan Creek. a. Purchase and install steel tube gate at road entrance to RSIs, troughs, and monitoring/capturing weirs. b. Install temporary fencing around the RSIs, troughs, and chillers. Gate would be installed in FY 2003; fencing would be rented annually $ 12,240 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. For security measures, rent and install temporary fencing around the RSIs, troughs, and incubators at Duncan Creek. 2004 2007 $ 10,000


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Keeping the spawning gravel free of large amounts of fines a. If large amounts of fines are found entering this site, the gravel will have to be cleaned using portable pumps and or air/water mixtures. annually, as necessary $ 17,340 x
2. Monitoring and controlling possible canary reed grass re-infestation. a. Planting additional shade producing native shrubs, covering areas with fabric, etc. annually, as neccessary $ 5,100 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. Based on results from measuring the physical characteristics in the spawning habitat in FY 2003 and the capturing of the naturally produced fry annually, make necessary adjustments to achieve a egg-to-fry survival rate of 40% or more. 2004 2004 $ 40,800


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$ 64,362 $ 24,740 $ 25,977 $ 27,276


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Purchase equipment to measure physical characteristics in the restored spawning habitat at Duncan Creek a. Purchase thirty piezometers (1 X 3/4" clear polycarbonate with polyethylene nosepieces placed at 50' intervals in the channels), fourteen temperature loggers (Onset Tidbit recorders), software for temperature loggers and D.O. and flow meters. 1 $ 4,080  
2. Using equipment purchased in Objective 1, measure physical characteristics in the newly restored spawning habitat in Duncan Creek to determine if the channels are operating properly. a. In surface waters, measure velocity, depth, flow, temperature, suspened solids, and D.O. levels. b. In the hyporheic zone, meaure gravel composition, water temperature, vertical hydraulic gradients, and D.O levels. 1 $ 14,137 x
3. Collect brood stock for Duncan Creek and if flows are low in Hardy, Hamilton, creeks plus the mainstem Columbia, capture chum salmon from adjacent areas for artificial or natural spawning. a. Using beach/stick seines, collect chum from the mainstem Columbia near Ives Island or collect fish from traps on Hamilton, Hardy, and Duncan creeks 12 years or less for Duncan Creek re-introduction; annually (when necessary) for other adjacent areas. $ 61,503  
4. Purchase equipment to artificially spawn fish from Duncan Creek and adjacent areas. a. Purchase spawning supplies including a portable shelter (10 X 20 foot Tarp World Shelter), dry ice for genetic samples, neoprene waders, boots, raingear, PVP for disinfecting, fish food, etc. 1 $ 5,290  
5. Spawning protocols developed for other ESA chum salmon recovery efforts by WDFW to be used on adults artificially spawned. Biological data collected to profile the stock and estimate egg-to-fry survival rates. a. Use spawning protocols in the Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative. b. Body and egg weights will be made and fork lengths will be measured. c. Collect scale (age) and genetic samples. d. Collect pathogen samples. 12 years or less for Duncan Creek re-introduction; annually (when necessary) for other adjacent areas. $ 8,812  
6. Set up Remote Site Incubators or Heath Trays for artificially spawned fish from Duncan Creek and adjacent areas. Monitor the environmental conditions. Estimate egg-to-fry survival rates. a. Connect plumbing and alarm systems to RSIs at Duncan Creek or Heath Trays at Washougal Hatchery. b. Measure water flow, D.O., temperature, and sediments. c. Collect, count, examine fish exiting the RSIs. d. In the Heath Trays, count mortalities. 12 years or less for Duncan Creek re-introduction; annually (when necessary) for other adjacent areas. $ 6,600 x
7. Thermally mark fry the fry from artificially spawned adults from Duncan Creek and adjacent areas. a. Set up chiller boxes, chillers, and flex hoses. b. Using the chiller and chiller boxes (already purchased in FY 2002), mark embryos and monitor incubation system. c. Dismantle chiller system at Duncan Creek after each marking season. 12 years or less for Duncan Creek re-introduction; annually (when necessary) for other adjacent areas. $ 13,965 x
8. Rear and release fry from artificially spawned adults from Duncan Creek and adjacent areas. Collect voucher samples of thermally marked fry before release. a. Count and feed fish, clean raceways, etc. b. Collect voucher samples from thermally marked fry prior to release and inspect otoliths for marks. c. Fry are collected from the rearing troughs and released into the mainstem Columbia. 12 years or less for Duncan Creek re-introduction; annually (when necessary) for other adjacent areas. $ 56,655  
9. Collect biological information on adult chum allowed to spawn naturally in the restored channels in Duncan Creek. Estimate actual egg deposition for the natural spawning population. a. The channels will be checked regularly for spawner mortalities. b. Scale samples and fork length measurements collected from each fish. c. Random sample of up to ten eggs will be taken to estimate egg size. d. Number of remaining eggs is estimated. annually $ 12,764 x
10. Using the existing capturing/monitoring weir, collect and enumerate naturally produced fry at Duncan Creek. Collect biological information and condition of the fry. Mark the fry. Estimate egg-to-fry survival using data collected in Objective 9. a. Using the Fyke net and collection box, enumerate fry daily. b. Collect biological information including lengths and weight of the naturally produced fry. c. Using a strontium bath or external fin clip, mark the fry. d. Release the fry. annually $ 28,274 x
11. Determine if the restored channels in Duncan Creek are functioning properly and suggest possible changes. Summarize and analyze data from the artificially and natural spawned fish. Estimate egg-to-fry survival rates for both groups. a. Write annual reports. annually $ 26,107 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. Collect otoliths from adults returning to Hamilton, Hardy, Duncan Creeks and the mainstem Columbia to evaluate the relative contribution rates of artifically or naturally produced fish and natural strays returning to the Duncan Creek. 2004 2007 $ 21,743
2. Process the otoliths and use normal light microscopy to detect thermal marks and Wave Dispersive Spectrometry to detect strontium marks.. 2004 2007 $ 7,500
3. Summarize data and write annual report of survival and straying rates for artificially and naturally produced fry from Duncan Creek and the contribution of unmarked or naturally straying fish. 2004 2007 $ 7,000


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$254,961 $267,709 $281,095 $295,149


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2003 Cost
Personnel FTE: Fish Biologist 3 0.17, Fish Biologist 2 (GS 9) 0.67, Scientific Technician 2 (GS 6) 0.42 $ 61,369
Fringe Fish Biologist 38%, Scientific Technician 16% $ 19,687
Supplies Piezometers, temperature loggers and software, D.O. meter, spawning supplies, raceways, Fyke nets, $ 42,025
Travel GSA vehile rent and mileage $ 9,500
Indirect 15% on PSMFC component ($19,887) and 2% on subcontrators WDFW($2,414), Crestline ($2,080) $ 24,381
Capital $ 0
NEPA $ 0
PIT tags $ 0
Subcontractor WDFW personnel $71,800, fringe benefits $9,340, travel $19,200, supplies $0 indirect $20,369 $120,709
Subcontractor Crestline Construction Company/KPFF Consulting $104,000
Other $ 0
Total Itemized Budget $381,671


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 project cost $381,671
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2003 budget request $381,671
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Govenor's Salmon Recovery Office Funds to modify dam for free fish passage $126,480 cash
Salmon Recovery Funding Board same as above $148,344 cash
Washington Department of Natural Resources - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account same as above $ 60,636 cash
Bradley Fund for the Environment same as above $ 15,000 cash
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation same as above $ 37,818 cash
Skamania Landing Owners Association Self Assessment same as above $131,106 cash

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2004 2005 2006 2007
Construction/implementation $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500
Operations and maintenance $ 64,362 $ 24,740 $ 25,977 $ 27,276
Monitoring and evaluation $254,961 $267,709 $281,095 $295,149
Total Outyear Budgets $321,823 $294,949 $309,572 $324,925
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 2002-2 Recommendation:
Fundable - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fundable. The project promises to benefit chum salmon, coho salmon, and sea-run cutthroat in the lower Columbia River through an innovative approach to natural restoration of salmonids. Reviewers caution that chum salmon should not be stocked until WDFW develops a plan for establishment of a wild chum salmon population in the context of a watershed assessment, and until a clearly defined protocol for monitoring spawning activity is in place.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
$381,671 $321,823 $294,949 $309,572 $324,925
Comment:
NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 2002-11 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fundable. The project promises to benefit chum salmon, coho salmon, and sea-run cutthroat in the lower Columbia River through an innovative approach to natural restoration of salmonids. Reviewers caution that chum salmon should not be stocked until WDFW develops a plan for establishment of a wild chum salmon population in the context of a watershed assessment, and until a clearly defined protocol for monitoring spawning activity is in place.

NMFS Review Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
M&E for the Duncan Creek restoration project, which already provided spawning habitat for both transplants salvaged from Ives Island and natural recolonizers during 2001. This proposal sets up an M&E program for measuring the success of the Duncan Creek project and for answering questions about the need for out/transplants versus natural recolonization, which may be important for future restoration efforts.

Comments
Important project that would move chum spawning from mainstem into tributary area not affected by flow and spill problems present at Ives Island. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


BPA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
A w/conditions
Date:
Jul 23, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommend to implement RPAs 156 and 157. Need to consolidate RM&E work with project #2000-012-00. Project needs at HGMP.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
2003 2004 2005
$381,671 $321,823 $294,949
Comment:

Columbia Lower Issue 3: Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek (Project 200105300)

Council Recommendation: The Duncan Creek project, proposed by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, would monitor and evaluate the success of restored spawning channels for chum salmon and possibly jump start the population by collecting broodstock for natural or artificial production. Support for the project and its broodstock collection components would trigger the Council's three-step review process for new artificial production related initiatives.

The project has a short, but somewhat convoluted history. This project was originally a High Priority solicitation project* and received a "B" ranking for a limited portion of the proposal from the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)**. The Council did not recommend the $420,796 proposal for funding in its High Priority recommendations made on February 7, 2001 and March 7, 2001.

At the 2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2001 meeting, NOAA Fisheries and BPA agreed to fund the project for $420,795 through the ESA placeholder in the 2001 Fish and Wildlife Program budget. As part of that decision, WDFW was asked to refine the proposal to include better M&E and other activities in response to ISRP's comments and NOAA Fisheries review. BPA also requested additional chum salvage work in case of low water years. The project sponsor developed a new proposal for a total of $841,685.

On July 31, 2001 the Council received from CBFWA a recommendation for additional funding for Project 23040, Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek. The National Marine Fisheries Service had subsequently advised Bonneville in writing that the Biological Opinion for the federal hydropower system requires this project and that it should be funded from a placeholder remaining for Endangered Species Act measures. In addition, the project sponsors subsequently revised the proposal addressing the comments and requests for additional monitoring and "salvage" work anticipated during low flow conditions in the fall of 2001. This revision was the basis for CBFWA's request for an additional $420,890 for the project.

In follow-up to this request, prior to the presentation to the Council, the Council staff discussed with NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville staff the consistency of this proposal with Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) of the Biological Opinion for the federal hydropower system. From these discussions there seemed to be differences between NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville on the application of the project elements to the RPAs. The restoration of spawning habitat for chum below Bonneville Dam is called for by RPA 157. An element of the original proposal, recommended in writing by NOAA Fisheries, would accomplish that work and was supported by the ISRP review. However, the additional artificial propagation, including the "salvage" operation for this year are not clearly identified as an RPA. NOAA Fisheries staff suggested that these may be consistent with RPAs 177 and 178 which call for funding "safety-net" measures for high risk salmon and steelhead populations.

On August 7, 2001 the Council decision was to defer consideration of artificial propagation activities and expanded monitoring components of the Duncan Creek proposal until the Lower Columbia Provincial review, and it requested additional information on the contingency plan for the salvage operation.

Additional discussion among Council, NOAA Fisheries and WDFW staffs occurred to respond to the Council's information request. On August 29th, 2001, the Council recommended that $67,000 to be added to the original $420,795 provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service for the Duncan Creek chum spawning channel rehabilitation project. This additional $67,000 recommended by the Council was to support the contingency salvage operation for adult chum salmon.

CBFWA rated the proposal for the Lower Columbia provincial review as a High Priority. The ISRP provided a fundable recommendation for the benefits to chum, coho and sea-run cutthroat, though they cautioned that chum salmon should not be stocked until a plan for establishment of a wild chum population in the context of a watershed assessment occurs and that monitoring protocols are defined.

NOAA Fisheries commented that Duncan Creek was an important project to move chum spawning from the mainstem to the tributaries and believed it addressed RPAs 156 and 157. Bonneville supported funding the project and agreed with NOAA Fisheries that the restoration efforts would implement RPAs 156 and 157.

The Council agrees that Duncan Creek potentially has substantial benefits for chum salmon restoration and would recommend funding the project. We do note that the taking of captive broodstock and the potential of artificial production would trigger a Three-Step review under the Fish and Wildlife Program. That Step review would then allow the Council to focus on addressing the ISRP concerns of conducting a watershed assessment and defining monitoring protocols prior to the stocking of a chum population. Therefore, funds associated with artificial production contained in the Construction and Implementation (objectives 3, 4 and 5) and Monitoring and Evaluation (objectives 3,4,5,6,7, and 8) budgets for the project are conditioned upon initiating, and then receiving a favorable three-step review decision by the Council. Funds for the Duncan Creek project would come from the base budget allocation for these provinces.

  * The "High Priority" project solicitation funded by the Bonneville Power Administration during Fiscal Year 2001, was intended to address projects resulting in immediate, on-the-ground benefits to threatened and endangered species of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. This funding was not intended to build infrastructure or capacity that requires separate follow-on funding in subsequent fiscal years to do the on-the-ground implementation. Additional activities of the kind approved for funding in a "High Priority" project were to be proposed for funding in FY 2002 on their own merits in the appropriate province review.

** The ISRP reviewed the project in the High Priority process. It limited recommendation for the project: "Objective 1 of the proposal meets the High Priority criteria, namely creation or cleaning up of the spawning grounds. The remainder of the objectives does not meet the threshold criteria of one-time funding for on-the-ground benefits. Natural recolonization by the remnant chum stock in Duncan Creek should be pursued prior to introduction of outside stock. The proposal might be funded at a reduced level for work on the spawning sites." (From ISRP 2001-1: High Priority Review).


BPA Funding Decision Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 30, 2003
2003
$381,671
Comment:
Fund as Recommended and to implement RPA 156, 157

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005 2006
$321,823 $321,823 $294,949

Funding Category: Expense

Comment:
Three step review has to be completed, possibly by August 1. Three objectives based upon a favorable step review. Confirm 04 and 05 amounts, likely to increase based on additional objectives.

Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05 Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005
$321,823 $294,949

Funding Category: Expense

Comment:
FY 04 and FY 05 budget amounts are OK. However, the full amount ($381,671) was approved for FY 03. During one of the accrual exercises, it was mistaken that$35K remained from FY 02 and would be used as part of the full amount for approved FY 03. At the time, bills still remained to be paid for FY 02. Ben Zelinsky, our BPA COTR, reports this matter has been corrected and the full amount has been approved for FY 03.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$294,949
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$294,949
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$294,949
Sponsor (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page