FY 2000 proposal 20120
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Factors Limiting Columbia River Gorge Chum Salmon Populations |
| Proposal ID | 20120 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Travis Coley |
| Mailing address | 9317 Highway 99, Suite I Vancouver, WA 98665 |
| Phone / email | 3606967605 / Travis_Coley@fws.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| Short description | Evaluate factors limiting chum salmon production, spawning group relationships, population dynamics, biological and ecological characteristics, and implement habitat enhancement in tributaries below Bonneville Dam. |
| Target species | Chum Salmon |
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 |
|---|
| 99003 |
Evaluate spawning of salmon just below the four lowermost Columbia dams |
This project is currently evaluating the effects of hydropower operations on mainstem spawning chum salmon below Bonneville Dam, and our proposed project will establish what relationship exists between those fish and chum spawning in two adjacent streams. |
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 |
70% GS-09 Project leader, 2- 50% GS-07 Biologists, 80% GS-06 Technician |
$76,300 |
| Fringe |
28% for all personnel |
$21,400 |
| Supplies |
Fyke nets, beach seines, radio-tags, MS-222, marking supplies, misc. equipment. |
$18,800 |
| Operating |
Vehicle and boat rental. |
$7,600 |
| Capital |
Weir construction. |
$10,000 |
| NEPA |
|
$1,500 |
| Construction |
Spawning channel. |
$15,000 |
| Travel |
Professional and coordination meeting attendance. |
$2,000 |
| Indirect |
23% |
$34,753 |
| Subcontractor |
Biological Resources Division- Columbia River Research Laboratory |
$2,500 |
| $189,853 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $189,853 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $189,853 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| USFWS |
Supervisory biologist |
$13,200 |
unknown |
| USFWS |
Office space |
$4,800 |
unknown |
| USFWS |
Heavy equipment and operators for construction of spawning channel |
$10,000 |
unknown |
| Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad |
Providing materials and personnel for spawning channel construction |
$15,000 |
unknown |
| Biological Resources Division- Columbia River Research Lab |
Radio-telemetry receivers |
$32,000 |
unknown |
| Interfluve, Inc. |
Engineering and design of spawning channel |
$6,000 |
unknown |
| USFWS |
Engineering and design of spawning channel |
$32,000 |
unknown |
| USFWS |
Materials for spawning channel stabilization and vegetation |
$10,000 |
unknown |
| Wolftree, Inc. |
Channel construction |
$10,000 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: ESA and other state and federal permits required for spawning channel construction
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund with high priority.
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund with high priority.
Comments:
The proposal is quite sound, well organized with logical objectives and with commendable expression of hypotheses and monitoring plans. Some of the hypotheses might have been cast in a more useful format, however. The seeming preoccupation with the null often does little to explain a proposed action. The project should generate useful information and result in an increased number of chum salmon in the Lower Columbia.
Specific questions and comments that should also be addressed are:
There is some concern that the principal investigators may be over-committed in absorbing this and other projects. Those named in this proposal, for example, are key to a number of other proposals, and one wonders how they may be able to address their responsibilities if all of the proposals are funded. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is presently conducting a watershed analysis of the Hardy Creek Basin. Does this work rate high priority in the assessment? Are watershed analyses in place for Hamilton and Grays Creeks as well?
How will this project aid the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to restore chum salmon by using remote streamside incubators to reintroduce chum? Are chum to be taken out of the three creeks? One reviewer questions the value of data from the Hydrolab water quality probes, notwithstanding that intragravel water quality and substrate composition after emergence should be valuable parameters in assessing spawning success. Neither temperature, surface dissolved oxygen nor conductivity is likely to influence incubation success very directly. Intragravel DO is being measured, and turbidity will be more effectively indexed by sediment composition of the gravel. How will the investigators know if spawning habitat is saturated? What if the numbers of spawning adults are good, but the numbers of out-migrating juveniles are low despite apparently good quality water and substrate? Are there contingency plans to investigate other possible limiting factors (e.g., an unsuspected contaminant) in the event their physical measurements do not explain the results of biological monitoring?
What is the probability of success for the spawning channel? The sample sizes of 10 males and 10 females for radio tracking is quite small, and one can anticipate that statistical precision of the proportions moving from one creek to another will be poor. Only the relative magnitude of movement will be known. Is not maintenance of flows over mainstem spawning areas critical, regardless of whether spawning habitat is saturated in Hamilton or Hardy Creeks, or when access to Hamilton Creek is limited by low flows?
No mention is made of a permanent mark for out-migrant juveniles that would permit a test of homing fidelity (though there is a hypothesis listed in Objectives that tags in chum salmon smolts will persist and be readable in returning adults). This discrepancy should be clarified.)
The proposal needs to better describe that it seeks to address major bottlenecks in the life history of chum. Reservoir operations should be documented as they affect water levels and sedimentation of the spawning channel.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]