FY 2001 Innovative proposal 200101200
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 |
|---|---|
| Detailed line-item budget | Narrative Attachment |
| 22033 Narrative | Narrative |
| Columbia Estuary: Elochoman Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Estuary: Elochoman Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate new methodologies for monitoring Pacific salmon and steelhead: methods for evaluating the effectiveness of restoration and recovery programs |
| Proposal ID | 200101200 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Gayle B. Zydlewski |
| Mailing address | 1440 Abernathy Creek Road Longview, WA 98632 |
| Phone / email | 3604256072 / gayle_zydlewski@fws.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Carl Burger |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Assess new methodologies for monitoring survival and migration of naturally spawned juvenile salmonids. These methods will be demonstrated by assessing the status and life history characteristics of coho salmon and steelhead trout in Abernathy Creek . |
| Target species | Coho salmon, steelhead trout, chinook salmon, bull trout, cutthroat trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.25 | -123.16 | Abernathy Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
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: 2.1 (see next page) | $87,402 |
| Fringe | $30,590 | |
| Supplies | $38,582 | |
| Travel | $2,427 | |
| Indirect | .342 | $54,378 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| PIT tags | standard PIT tags will not be used | $0 |
| Subcontractor | $6,310 | |
| Other | FY02 costs for task b: personnel, fringe benefits, supplies, travel, indirect, capital, & PIT tags | $133,687 |
| $353,376 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $353,376 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $353,376 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This project has an excellent component that is innovative because PIT-tags with this signal range have not been used in the Pacific Northwest in fisheries studies. The chance for success is very high because, the larger PIT-tag (23 mm) has been tested on the East Coast for monitoring Atlantic salmon in stream environments. This tag should be valuable in several ways, because it would potentially allow a series of receivers to be installed over a stream to detect the passage of tagged smolt or a portable receiver to detect presence of tagged individuals during stream surveys. It would then be possible to estimate, for example, over-winter survival in tributary habitat, winter tracking to determine salmonid habitat use, return of adults to the stream, etc. Use of this larger PIT-tag would add a new dimension to monitoring efforts in many subbasins, because the tag could potentially provide information that is currently available only through the use of larger and more intrusive radio-tags. It is obvious that if the portable monitoring system works, a stream can be surveyed periodically during the rearing period to estimate in stream survival rates using the same mark-recapture methodology currently in use to estimate survival of migrating juveniles between dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The ISRP was impressed with the component of the proposal associated with testing the feasibility and utility of using the larger PIT-tags. However, if funded, we recommend that the project be funded only at the level to test the ability of the gear to assess juvenile survival and distribution in streams. Also, it seems that testing of this innovative technique could be done in a shorter period of time than proposed for the entire project. The five-year period covered in the proposal adversely affected its relative ranking. Also, it was unclear if equipment (a screwtrap) listed for purchase under another innovative proposal (#22031) was needed here. In discussion of the proposal, the ISRP was curious if this larger PIT-tag can be read by the standard detectors in use on, for example, the bypass systems of mainstem dams or if the detection device proposed can read the smaller tags that are currently being used in the basin? The ISRP would encourage the use of compatible systems if possible, but this should not be a requirement for funding the project.REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
High Piriority (at pilot scale)
High Piriority (at pilot scale)
Date:
Jan 17, 2001
Jan 17, 2001
Comment:
The need for small stream PIT-tag interrogation is high in the Columbia River Basin. This proposal suggests several worthwhile approaches that should be tested. A cooperative effort with other investigators working on small stream PIT-tag interrogation systems is suggested, as well as the mainstem PIT tag work. The proposed PIT tags are not compatible with the newly installed system at all the hydroelectric dams on the mainstem Columbia River. These tags could not be used with existing hardware. The tags proposed here are also too large to use with most juvenile salmon in the Columbia River. However, the tags would work very well with juvenile steelhead. If successful, this technology could provide one more tool for monitoring timing and behavior in the numerous small streams in the Columbia River Basin. This project should only be funded at a pilot scale.Comment:
The need for small stream PIT-tag interrogation is high in the Columbia River Basin. This proposal suggests several worthwhile approaches that should be tested. A cooperative effort with other investigators working on small stream PIT-tag interrogation systems is suggested, as well as the mainstem PIT tag work. The proposed PIT tags are not compatible with the newly installed system at all the hydroelectric dams on the mainstem Columbia River. These tags could not be used with existing hardware. The tags proposed here are also too large to use with most juvenile salmon in the Columbia River. However, the tags would work very well with juvenile steelhead. If successful, this technology could provide one more tool for monitoring timing and behavior in the numerous small streams in the Columbia River Basin. This project should only be funded at a pilot scale.Comment:
Establish placeholder until sponsor clarifies, together with NMFS and BPA, issue of tag size and fish size, and if they can be read by current detection devices at dams. Forfeit funding if issue not resolved within 90 days after Council decision.Comment:
Comment: