FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28035
Contents
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
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 28035 Narrative | Narrative |
| 28035 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 28035 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Geomorphic Controls on Watershed-Scale Availability of Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat in the Salmon River |
| Proposal ID | 28035 |
| Organization | University of Idaho, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (UI/RMRS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | John M. Buffington |
| Mailing address | Dept. of Civil Engineering, 800 Park Blvd., Suite 200 Boise, ID 83712 |
| Phone / email | 2083644082 / jbuff@uidaho.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Larry Stauffer |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Quantify geomorphic controls on watershed-scale availability of sediment sizes suitable for chinook spawning. |
| Target species | Chinook salmon in the Snake River spring/summer ESU |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.856 | -116.7926 | Salmon River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 153 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 155 | NMFS | BPA, working with BOR, the Corps, EPA, and USGS, shall develop a program to 1) identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, survey conditions, describe cause-and- effect relationships, and identify research needs; 2) develop improvement plans for all mainstem reaches; and 3) initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches. Results shall be reported annually. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9902000 | Analyze the persistence and spatial dynamics of Snake River chinook salmon | Collaborative, information sharing |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Predict grain size and the spatial distribution of suitable spawning habitat as a function of channel hydraulics and boundary shear stress. | a. Determine bankfull flow depth and channel slope at watershed scales b. Determine grain sizes suitable for chinook spawning | 3 | $40,000 | |
| 2. Modify predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability to account for channel type and consequent hydraulic roughness. | a. Predict and field verify channel type, hydraulic roughness, and consequent modification of surface grain size. | 3 | $30,000 | |
| 3. Quantify the effects of sediment supply on surface grain size and spawning habitat availability | a. Identify sources and magnitudes of sediment supply. b. Model the long-term effects on spawning habitat availability due to sediment input and routing through the channel network. | 3 | $43,625 | |
| 4. Validate predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability | (see narrative) | 3 | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2003 | 2004 | $80,000 |
| 2 | 2003 | 2004 | $60,000 |
| 3 | 2003 | 2004 | $87,250 |
| 4 | 2003 | 2004 | $40,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $133,625 | $133,625 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.5 | $67,921 |
| Fringe | 28.5% salaried; 1% student | $14,407 |
| Supplies | camping equipment | $500 |
| Travel | field work; flights to site | $5,000 |
| Indirect | 48.5% | $42,597 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 0 | $0 |
| Other | student fees | $3,200 |
| $133,625 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $133,625 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $133,625 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| UI | 4 months of salary for J. M. Buffington | $26,948 | in-kind |
| UI | 2 months of salary for computer programer | $12,000 | in-kind |
| UI | office space, administrative assistance | $10,000 | in-kind |
| UI | computer hardwater and software for data compilation, word processing, communication with cooperators, and analysis | $6,000 | in-kind |
| UI | survey, GIS, and field equipment | $60,000 | in-kind |
| RMRS | office space, adminstrative assistance | $9,000 | in-kind |
| RMRS | computer hardwater and software for data compilation, GIS, word processing, communication with cooperators, and analysis | $10,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
A response is needed. The project proposes to quantify geomorphic controls on the availability of sediment sizes in the Middle Fork Salmon River by assessing validation of a geomorphic model, derived in a western Washington stream setting, that incorporates sediment grain size, relationship to slope and shear stresses. If successful, it might enable the utilization of remote sensing to identify and quantify potential spawning habitat. The researchers are highly competent. However in the minds of reviewers performance of this task would not significantly contribute to the goals of the FWP, especially in the Salmon subbasin where spawning substrate is well identified and clearly not in short supply. The response should clearly demonstrate the benefits of this project to fish, and the Fish and Wildlife Program.Comment:
This project should be incorporated into project number 199902000. See the comments for project 199902000.Comment:
Do not fund as stand alone project. See project 199902000.Comment:
Do not fund as stand alone project. See project 199902000.Comment:
Not fundable. The project proposes to quantify geomorphic controls on the availability of sediment sizes in the Middle Fork Salmon River by assessing validation of a geomorphic model that incorporates sediment grain size, relationship to slope and shear stresses. Scientifically the proposal appears sound and would likely result in the ability to more rapidly assess, by remote sensing, the presence/absence of suitable-sized spawning gravel (in this case for chinook salmon). Project sponsors provided in the response additional discussion of the general applicability of the results, and how the results might be used to address several different management situations. That said, reviewers were not convinced that the approach would have substantial utility in the Columbia system, where there is a relatively high level of awareness of the location of available spawning substrate, to the extent that most individual chinook redds are located by ground or aerial survey. A revised proposal may be appropriate for the systemwide solicitation.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUBenefits are indirect. Identify potential spawning habitat for chinook salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon River by using models based on gravel size preferred by spawning salmon.
Comments
Model development. If purpose of project is to predict spawning distribution in the MF Salmon, this project is not necessary. We agree with the ISRP's comments that this project would not significantly contribute to the goals of the NWPPC's Fish and Wildlife Program, nor to recovery of Snake River stocks, because spawning substrate in the Salmon subbasin is already well identified and not in short supply. This information is already generally available, so actual benefit of project is questionable. If purpose is to develop a model in the well-censused MF Salmon for use in less-studied subbasins elsewhere, this may be a reasonable proposal, but it will need to include testing in other subbasins. Although it may be of some use in this context, NMFS questions that a model supporting broad-ranging habitat assessments will focus on something as specific as sediment size? What about flow, water depth, water quality, etc?
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Do not recommend. The project could be reconsidered when a regional RM&E plan is completed and the need for the project can be properly assessed and roles and responsibilities among federal agencies for conducting research has been resolved. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
155
Comment: