FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22037
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 |
|---|---|
| Project movie (100MB) | Narrative Attachment |
| Sonar movie | Narrative Attachment |
| 22037 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Locate chum and fall chinook salmon and redds in deep and turbid water using an acoustic camera |
| Proposal ID | 22037 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey / Biological Resources Division (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Kenneth F. Tiffan |
| Mailing address | 5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / ken_tiffan@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Dr. James Seelye |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | Collect habitat information from fish spawning at Ives Island below Bonneville Dam to relate habitat availability to river disharge to allow for prediction of available habitat at a larger spatial scale. |
| Target species | Chum salmon, fall chinook salmon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.6245 | -121.9857 | Ives Island |
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: 1 | $37,658 |
| Fringe | $9,301 | |
| Supplies | $12,500 | |
| Travel | $1,700 | |
| Indirect | USGS Overhead | $20,925 |
| Capital | Dual-frequency identification sonar (DIDSON) | $80,000 |
| Other | Boat operation and vehicle | $2,250 |
| $164,334 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $164,334 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $164,334 |
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 proposal to test an innovative piece of equipment is sound. The new acoustic camera, just recently available commercially, could be used to locate and monitor redds in deep and turbid water throughout the Columbia and Snake Rivers. However, the critical need for use of the camera to identify salmonid spawning below the Columbia River dams is not convincingly presented. What are the benefits compared to what is currently being used? Questions and concerns: ? Why cannot this project be conducted under the current contract 99-003 "Evaluate spawning of fall chinook and chum salmon just below the four lowermost Columbia River mainstem dams" being conducted by the USGS? ? Will the camera be of use in location and monitoring of redds during high water conditions in smaller streams?Comment:
This work could be closely integrated with existing projects that are monitoring mainstem spawning.Comment:
This work could be closely integrated with existing projects that are monitoring mainstem spawning.