FY 2000 proposal 20024

Additional documents

TitleType
20024 Narrative Narrative
20024 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluate Fall Chinook Natural Production and Spawning Habitat Conditions in the Tucannon River
Proposal ID20024
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJoseph D. Bumgarner
Mailing address401 S. Cottonwood Dayton, WA 99328
Phone / email5093824755 / snakeriv@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Tucannon
Short descriptionAssess fall chinook natural production and the potential for hatchery supplementation. Document sedimentation of fall chinook redds and estimate survival of eggs within redds. Capture, identify, enumerate and calculate survivals for migrating sub-yearl
Target speciesSnake River Fall 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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9401806 Tucannon River model watershed program Provide a habitat assessment baseline
9401807 Pataha Creek model watershed program Provide a habitat assessment baseline
9801003 Monitor and evaluate the spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook. Cooperative effort between agencies to document Snake River fall chinook spawning.
9102900 Life History and Survival of fall chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basi Life history and survival estimates from outside the Snake River Basin.

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 Three technician 2's (one 3 months, two 4 months each), One Biologist 3 (4 months) and one full time $53,100
Fringe 28.5% for state WDFW employees and 1.0% for graduate student. $11,470
Supplies Freeze core sampler, turbidimeter, material to build redd caps, genetic analysis (juvenile and adult $21,900
Operating vehicle and smolt trap maintenance $1,500
Capital None $0
PIT tags 1,300 $3,770
Travel Vehicle leasing at 250/month and 1000 miles/month x $0.31 x 6 months $3,360
Indirect Washington State overhead at 22.5% Graduate Student overhead at 31.5% $25,587
Other None $0
$120,687
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$120,687
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$120,687
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
LSRCP smolt trap, computers, office space, phone, PIT tag equipment, additional personnel time, travel and vehicle operation and maintenance $45,000 unknown
Columbia Garfield County Conservation Districts (Tucannon and Pataha Model Watersheds) Temperature recorders (5), ISCO sediment samplers (3) $11,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: During some years, extreme river flows may preclude successful spawning ground surveys and proposed monitoring of those redds over time. In addition, high spring runoff may hinder our attempts to cap redds and trap juvenile migrants. Until we formally request a Section 10 Permit modification, NMFS may prevent us from capping or disturbing natural fall chinook redds in the Tucannon River, as eggs within each redd are listed as “threatened” under the ESA. If our permit modification is rejected, results from artificial redds (created as natural as possible without using egg baskets) will have to be utilized. Even then, redd capping efforts may be futile against heavy spring runoffs. Because this project is not scheduled to begin until 2000, WDFW has time to request any changes in our research permit.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Delay funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until deficiencies are corrected. Objective 2, 3, and 6 might be technically and programmatically justified, and a revised proposal that addressed only these elements might be fundable (at something less than 50% of the currently proposed project cost). Objective 1 has low probability of success, and Objective 4 already appears to have been addressed by other investigators (Category 1d).

Comments: This is a proposal for new work to assess sedimentation of fall chinook redds and estimate outmigration of subyearlings. The problem noted is that most salmon carcasses recovered from fall chinook redds in the lower Tucannon River are unmarked, and it is known that many fall chinook in the area are strays. Therefore, the motivation for the study seems to be to answer whether fall chinook strays spawn successfully. The panel felt that objective 1, to determine the fate of redds, has little chance of success. The author acknowledges that high sedimentation precludes egg to alevin survival; is it really necessary to try to document poor survival (with a very low chance of success), or is it more prudent to accept poor survival as consensus and move ahead? The proposal also identifies a number of habitat issues in the lower Tucannnon associated with agricultural practices, and it appears that the project would really be a habitat survey of some kind. The problems of determining the viability of the natural population, potential for supplementation, and habitat restoration potential are no doubt linked. However, the integration is not well addressed in this proposal. Furthermore, to the extent that this is a habitat project, it has not addressed the question of prior watershed analysis, as required in the Request for Proposal, and on this basis alone, should be given a low priority for funding. If the proposers decide to resubmit in the future, they need to either focus the project more clearly, or develop a better and more convincing argument that they can address the breadth of issues raised. Qualifications of the PI appear to be primarily in the fisheries area, if habitat issues are to be addressed, expertise in habitat science would need to be added to the project team. Finally, the information transfer plan is weak. More than just a promise for publication of results "if possible" in refereed journals is necessary.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Criteria all: Met? Yes -
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];