FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200100700
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 |
|---|---|
| 23036 Narrative | Narrative |
| Lower Columbia: Columbia Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Lower Columbia: Columbia Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate live capture selective harvesting methods for commercial fisheries on the Columbia River |
| Proposal ID | 200100700 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW/ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Geraldine Vander Haegen |
| Mailing address | WDFW Fish Program, 600 Capital Way N Olympia, WA 98501-1091 |
| Phone / email | 3609022793 / vandegev@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lee Blankenship, WDFW; Guy Norman, ODFW |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | Evaluate commercial live capture selective harvesting on the Columbia River to provide a fishery where tooth nets are used to catch marked hatchery chinook and unmarked fish are released. |
| Target species | Spring chinook |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.6367 | -121.9337 | Bonneville Dam |
| 45.6075 | -121.13 | The Dalles Dam |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 164 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS, USFWS, and Tribal and state fishery management agencies in a multiyear program to develop, test, and deploy selective fishing methods and gear that enable fisheries to target nonlisted fish while holding incidental impacts on listed fish within NMFS-defined limits. The design of this program and initial implementation (i.e., at least the testing of new gear types and methods) shall begin in FY 2001. Studies and/or pilot projects shall be under way and/or methods deployed by the 3-year check-in. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3.2 total WDFW: 1.45, $46,154; ODFW: 1.8, $56,846 | $103,000 |
| Fringe | 30% of salaries of non-temporary staff WDFW: $13,846; ODFW: $17,054 | $30,900 |
| Supplies | 2 laptops, tags, safety gear, rain gear, miscellaneous WDFW: $14,200; ODFW: $7,385 | $21,585 |
| Travel | Perdiem, mileage for field staff, travel to meetings WDFW: $28,250; ODFW: $26,050 | $54,300 |
| Indirect | WDFW 30%, $33,135; ODFW 20.6%, $40,215 | $74,100 |
| Capital | Net pens ($20,000), fishing nets ($42,000) ODFW: $62,000 | $62,000 |
| Subcontractor | Test fishing contracts WDFW: $8,000; ODFW: $30,400 | $38,400 |
| $384,285 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $384,285 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $384,285 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WDFW | Salary and benefits, 0.25 Bio 4, principle investigator | $15,000 | in-kind |
| WDFW | Mileage and per diem for principal investigator | $1,000 | cash |
| WDFW | Equipment, trap net | $12,500 | in-kind |
| WDFW | Hold workshop | $1,000 | in-kind |
| ODFW | Salary and benefits, 0.25 Bio 4, principal investigator | $15,000 | cash |
| ODFW | Equipment | $2,500 | in-kind |
| ODFW | Fishing effort for mesh size comparison, compensated with catch | $40,000 | in-kind |
| ODFW | Hold workshop | $1,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal might not meet the criteria for the Threshold Criteria. It would provide benefits for listed species only if fishing is authorized that would take the listed species as incidental catch, and only if the study succeeds in identifying enforceable soak times and mesh sizes for gill nets that might be employed in such fisheries. The proposal is for a good one-year study, but any on-the-ground implementation of full-scale measures would come later. Having said that, it is regrettable proposals to develop selective fishing methods are still playing with the most unselective gear (gillnets are gillnets). These tooth nets are really tangle nets. What is wrong with fish wheels and other non-lethal gear? The portion of this proposal, identified as Objective 4, dealing with a floating trap net is the one portion worth funding, but it appears to represent a minor portion of the effort proposed. As for the requirement that there be a one-time funding commitment, we note that the proposal makes reference to two previous studies of the so-called "tooth nets" whose evaluation is proposed here. However, no data or findings from those studies are given.Comment:
Comment:
Comment:
This project corresponds directly to Action Item No. 164, the development and testing of selective fishing methods and gear. To the extent effective live-catch fishing gear and/or methods are developed and deployed, they provide the potential to harvest abundant species, particularly hatchery fish, while tangibly reducing impacts on listed fish.Comment: