FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200311400

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
35064 Narrative	Narrative
35064 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response
Appendix: Maps and Figures	Narrative Attachment
Letter from J. Palensky (CBFWA) to F. Cassidy (NPCC) RE: CBFWA Review of two projects - 35064 and 35065	CBFWA Review Recommendations
FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200311400	Powerpoint Presentation
FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200311400	Powerpoint Presentation
FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200311400 - Attached Animation File	Powerpoint Presentation Attached File
FY 2005 Powerpoint Presentation Update for Project 200311400 - Attached Codec Needed to Run Animation	Powerpoint Presentation Attached File

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	An Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying Ocean Survival and Movements of Columbia River Salmon
Proposal ID	200311400
Organization	Kintama Research Corporation (Kintama Corp)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr David Welch
Mailing address	321-2815 Departure Bay Rd Nanaimo, British Columbia Canada V9S 5P4
Phone / email	2507143526 / david.welch@kintamaresearch.org
Manager authorizing this project	David Welch
Review cycle	Mainstem/Systemwide
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary
Short description	Development of a skeleton acoustic array to demonstrate an approach to tracking movements of individual fish through the river and along the West Coast of North America. The project will initially be focussed on salmon, but has much wider application.
Target species	Initially focussed on chinook and coho, but with applications to all anadromous fish in the Columbia River.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		North-western most extent of the proposed skeleton array, terminating just north of Icy Strait, SE Alaska
46.22	-124.09	Southern-most extent of the proposed array, terminating just south of Cape Blanco, Oregon

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action Item 185
Action Item 186
Action Item 187
Action Item 189
Action Item 195
Action Item 196
Action Item 197

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 195	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall investigate and partition the causes of mortality below Bonneville Dam after juvenile salmonid passage through the FCRPS.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2001	Funding of Innovative Proposal "A Feasibility Study for Pacific Ocean Salmon Tracking (POST)" in March, 2001.
2001	Submitted primary paper to TAFS on effects of tagging: "Growth, Survival, and Tag Retention of Surgically Implanted Acoustic Tags in Steelhead Trout (O. mykiss)", submitted 18 October, 2001
2001	Completed majority of acoustic measurements required to define performance characteristics of new acoustic tracking methodologies (Ongoing, but majority completed by November)
2001	Received financial support from the Census of Marine Life to promote awareness in and develop the concept of tracking salmon through the marine phase of their life history. A successful field trial of the methodology was conducted in May-June 2001.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199801400	Survival and growth of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River Plume (NMFS)	Indirect-The current proposal could improve the interpretation of the NMFS study of how measured ocean conditions affecting salmon applies to specific stocks of Columbia River salmon.
	Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (DFO)	Indirect-The current proposal could improve the interpretation in the DFO study of how measured ocean conditions affecting salmon applies to specific stocks of Columbia River salmon.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Prepare for Ocean and River tagging work.	a. Secure necessary permits for river and ocean tagging (NEPA/ESA permits and State/Provincial permissions)	3	$8,000	Yes
	b. Co-ordinate with hatcheries and dam managers in preparation for tagging work	3	$1,000	Yes
2. Prepare for acoustic array deployment	a. Survey acoustic receiver locations in river; make initial deployments and assess tag detection probability for the specific deployment.	1	$10,200
	b.Survey acoustic receiver locations in ocean; make initial deployments and assess tag detection probability at different points along some detection lines to determine likely detection efficiency.	1	$42,450

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Prepare for Ocean and River tagging work	2003	2005	$23,875
2. Prepare for array deployment in SE Alaska & remaining British Columbia lines	2004	2004	$19,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$33,875	$9,000

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Deploy acoustic array.	a. Develop finalized acoustic receiver design with Vemco	1	$15,000
	b. Order equipment required to build acoustic tracking array (estimated at $5K per acoustic node); pre-position delivery of heavy equipment near vessel's home ports (see (e), below)	1	$1,020,000
	c. Labour & travel by PI to evaluate seine boats for use in deploying array & tagging salmon and finalize charters with vessel owners (Oregon, British Columbia)	1	$9,250
	d. Travel to Columbia River and deploy 8 acoustic lines in March-April	1	$10,200	Yes
	e. Use purse seiners to deploy acoustic array in ocean, working from south to north (April-early May)	1	$42,450	Yes
2. Tag salmon for use in demonstration project	a.Order equipment necessary for river and ocean tagging (3x350=1,050 V8SC acoustic tags for river work, 400 tags for ocean work plus PIT tags); sutures, surgical kits, Oxygen, holding tanks, plus ancillary consumables.	3	$495,321
	b.Tag 700 spring-type chinook smolts at 2 upriver hatcheries in April-early May	3	$25,150
	c. Tag 350 fall-type chinook smolts at Bonneville & McNary Dams in mid-summer	3	$16,525
	d. Tag 400 juvenile chinook & coho in 2 ocean areas (Oregon-Washington; west coast of Vancouver Island) in September	3	$30,300	Yes
3. Recover fish detection data from acoustic array	a. Recover data from in-river receivers	5	$45,800
	b. Recover data from ocean receivers in July; evaluate receiver performance & replace lost equipment	5	$65,425	Yes
	c. Recover data from ocean receivers in September; evaluate receiver performance and replace lost or worn equipment	5	$65,425	Yes

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Deployment Acoustic array: SE Alaska and remaining British Columbia receivers	2004	2004	$919,889
2. Tagging of salmon (increased to include ocean tagging in SE Alaska) doubled from year 1 levels, including DNA/scale work	2003	2005	$2,510,126
3. Recovering fish detection data from acoustic array	2003	2007	$1,483,301

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$2,446,452	$1,718,054	$356,065	$392,745

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Replacement of lost acoustic receivers (@ 20% per year)	2004	2006	$991,814

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$194,494	$398,660	$398,660

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Evaluate in-river detection data	a. Assess fraction of tagged smolts detected on each acoustic line; develop statistics on receiver performance (# of detections for each fish/receiver; frequency of non-detection on one or more lines)	5	$10,000
	b. Assess rate of movement downstream for each smolt; develop stock-specific measures of movement & compare between stocks	5	$10,000
	c. Establish rate of tag loss with distance downriver to estuary	5	$8,000
	d. Establish residence time in estuary	5	$10,000
	e. Evaluate efficiency of initial design for in-river detection array	1	$12,000
2. Evaluate ocean detection data	a. Assess fraction of tagged smolts detected on each acoustic line; develop statistics on receiver performance (# of detections for each fish/receiver; frequency of non-detection on one or more lines)	5	$11,000
	b. Assess direction of movement after leaving estuary for each smolt; develop stock-specific measures of movement & compare between stocks	5	$10,000
	c. Establish rate of tag loss with time after fish leaves estuary; make statistical comparison of stock-specific estimates	5	$9,000
	d. Evaluate efficiency of initial design for ocean detection array	1	$17,000
3. evaluate Schaller et al's hypothesis of common ocean distribution for upper Columbia River and Snake River salmon stocks	a. Assess stock-specific areas of ocean residence for each stock;	5	$23,000
4. Establish probable stock of origin & life history type for ocean tagged fish	a. Subcontract for DNA stock ID and scale-based estimates of Chinook life history type for each tagged fish	5	$24,000	Yes
5. Complete contractor's report; co-ordinate and review results with contract manager and year 2 implications	a. Complete contractor's report	5	$5,000
	b. Review results from year 1 with contract manager to re-evaluate original plans for yr2 activities (travel and labour)	1	$7,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Evaluate in river detection data	2003	2007	$300,000
2. Evaluate ocean detection data	2003	2007	$300,000
3. Evaluate Schaller et al's hypothesis of common ocean distribution for Upper Columbia and Snake River salmon stocks	2003	2007	$164,000

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$191,000	$191,000	$191,000	$191,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 4.0	$213,979
Fringe	Calculated at 20%	$42,796
Supplies	Acoustic receivers and tags; surgical supplies	$1,377,310
Travel	To evaluate charter vessels, plus travel to tagging sites and receiver deployment and data retrieval	$40,200
Indirect	Calculated at 30% of value, exclusive of vessel charters and equipment	$121,536
NEPA	Tagging permits for river & ocean work	$8,000
PIT tags	# of tags: 1100	$2,475
Subcontractor	Fish Passage Solutions	$77,000
Subcontractor	Multiple charter vessels	$151,200
Subcontractor	DNA Analysis	$20,000
Subcontractor	Scale Analysis	$4,000
		$2,058,496

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$2,058,496
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$2,058,496
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This proposal continues to be technically innovative and the investigators have completed portions of the Innovative Project (#200008000) tasks. These results are presented and relevance to the FWP is well described. However, the guidelines for the innovative project category require that sponsors complete the innovative study and submit a final report in order to be considered for additional funding. What is the status of completion of the final report?

The purpose of this proposal is "to expand research on the acoustic tag and develop a prototype array which will allow demonstrating the capabilities of the technology to establish both river and ocean movements of chinook salmon (page 5)." The author states that the basic technology is now commercially available and the efficiency of its components has been tested. However, he does also note that "the logistics of deploying the equipment and gathering the data from fish tagged at various locations will require extensive effort over a wide geographic area. Deployment of equipment in the ocean will require significant R&D design effort (in particular, we intend to place the entire array sub-surface so that surface floats vulnerable to vessel traffic, fishing activities, and "curious" individuals are eliminated). Designs have been developed and partially field-tested for deploying the equipment on a semi-permanent basis to withstand the severe conditions that may be encountered at various sampling sites."

Concerning the results presented, the ISRP did note that studies of the biological response of smolts to the acoustic tag implantation were conducted on steelhead and that the proposal focuses on spring chinook. The author may also be interested that there are yearling fall chinook reared in the Snake and upper Columbia River that would also be large enough for tagging.

Much of the proposal background is the same material presented in proposal #30010 and we will not repeat our comments. The importance of this technology is that it provides a means to actually measure migration rates (not necessarily migration paths, they will be inferred between two points), residency time in an area (e.g., within the Columbia River plume), and mortality rates. These are important questions for the Basin and merit support, but ... in our assessment, this proposal is too large a next step in the development of the technology and the "proof in principle". Before expenditures in the millions for receivers etc., there is a responsibility to develop the arrays, deployment processes, and methods for data capture. There is little value in testing a hypothesis unless the uncertainties of the new technology can be addressed or eliminated. The ISRP continues to support this innovation and the efforts of this investigator but we recommend that a revised and reduced proposal be submitted. The development and testing of receiver arrays should be priorities in the short-term and then scaling up to a network of coastal arrays over time if demonstrated to be successful (i.e., re-profile costs over time and after demonstrated successes). This process may also allow for other organizations to contribute to the larger coastwide array and possible applications. However, the principles could provide important information to the Columbia Basin if the revisions first address in-river movements and then residence time in and around the Columbia plume.

Attention should be given to the basis for budget estimates, in particular who the investigators will be and their involvement, and the basis for certain cost estimates. In the current budget, it is hard to understand a basis for Section 7 (Monitoring and Evaluation) costs given that the majority of those costs would seem to be labor for analytical time.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Reviewers believe this proposal may be better suited for the Systemwide Province since this issue is not exclusive to the estuary. If the tracking could be scaled down to include the only the plume, then the project could be considered for review in the Estuary. The project sponsor should resubmit this project in the Mainstem and Systemwide Province.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable but at a reduced level of support, disagree with CBFWA. Development of the final design for the acoustic arrays is high priority. This is an innovative but expensive research project but could provide new and important insights into the early sea-life of salmonids and their use of the ocean environment. However, as we have noted in previous reviews, the funding for proposals in this province will be very competitive. The ISRP suggests though that it would be a reasonable process to discuss the final array design with the proponents and to develop an incremental budget over the next few years.

This proposal continues to be technically innovative and the investigators have essentially completed the Innovative Project (#200008000) tasks. These results are presented and relevance to the FWP is well described. The purpose of this proposal is "to expand research on the acoustic tag and develop a prototype array which will allow demonstrating the capabilities of the technology to establish both river and ocean movements of chinook salmon (page 5)." The author states that the basic technology is now commercially available and the efficiency of its components has been tested. However, he does also note that,

"the logistics of deploying the equipment and gathering the data from fish tagged at various locations will require extensive effort over a wide geographic area. Deployment of equipment in the ocean will require significant R&D design effort (in particular, we intend to place the entire array sub-surface so that surface floats vulnerable to vessel traffic, fishing activities, and "curious" individuals are eliminated). Designs have been developed and partially field-tested for deploying the equipment on a semi-permanent basis to withstand the severe conditions that may be encountered at various sampling sites."

The importance of this technology is that it provides a means to actually measure migration rates (not necessarily migration paths, they will be inferred between two points), residency time in an area (e.g., within the Columbia River plume), and mortality rates.

In general, fairly comprehensive responses were provided for most of the ISRP concerns. The author noted that he will comply with the requirements of the Innovative proposal and that the work was now complete. He noted that there do remain issues with the deployment of the acoustic detection arrays but also noted the recent success of deployments in the Atlantic Ocean. There was an additional discussion concerning an interaction with the NMFS Plume project to assist in the assessment of residence times and mortality rates. However, this would be an additional task that was not included in the Plume response and is not relevant for our consideration. The major issue of concern is how to scale the development of these acoustic arrays. The authors have proposed a deployment plan and argued that a critical mass of receivers are required and that the preferred strategy is multiple array lines (compared to fewer lines with more receivers per line). The authors provide adequate justification for this strategy but a minimum number of line arrays were not specified (although a proposed number was suggested).

The ISRP concerns regarding dedicated time of the investigators were addressed and the PI suggested that if the project was supported that he would likely request a three-year leave from his current position. The other budget issue noted was that an allowance for 20% loss of the receivers per year was added to the annual budgets. The budget was re-profiled over time but, in total, it increased.

A remaining limitation of these studies is the size of the acoustic tag. The tag may be suitable for juvenile spring chinook and steelhead (and likely coho), but not for smaller juvenile salmonids. While this may be a limitation for some in-river studies or plume studies for fall Chinook, it is not likely a reason to delay testing of the receiver arrays that can be tested with the larger tag.

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A w/conditions

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

Support funding, but at a reduced level; needs to coordinate with 30002, 1998-014-00, 30001, 30010 and the NMFS Systemwide acoustic project. If possible, move to the Systemwide review and coordinate/collaborate with the NMFS acoustic proposals.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Review in MS/SW

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Columbia Estuary Issue 1: ESA Research Projects, Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume (Project 199801400); Holistic Habitat Opportunities and Food-Web Linkages of Juvenile Salmon (Project 30001); Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids (Project 30002); Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying Ocean Survival and Movements of Columbia River Salmon (Project 30007); Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (Project 30010)

Council Recommendation: These five proposals are all research proposals involving study of the estuary habitat, the Columbia River plume and the ocean habitats that Columbia River salmon traverse during their migration. The Council is recommending two of these proposals for funding in this provincial review, that two of the proposals be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration, and that one proposal not be funded at this time. Of the five research projects, only 199801400 is an ongoing effort. It has proposed a rather substantial expansion of its plume study. It received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and the ISRP gave it a fundable recommendation, noting that the project sponsors felt that tasks 4 and 5 could be deferred for 1-2 years if budget constraints affected funding. NOAA Fisheries supported this NOAA Fisheries sponsored research project. They identified the project addressing numerous RPAs, but most significantly RPAs 158 and 162. Bonneville supported the project, but noted that it should coordinate with the other four proposed research projects. Bonneville's comments on the other four proposals are similar to their comments on 199801400 and will only be addressed here.

The Council agrees with the ISRP, BPA and NOAA Fisheries that the project provides an important research effort, which could probe how the hydrosystem and its operation impacts the estuary and near-shore ocean and plume environment. The Council also supports the expansion of objectives 1,2 and 3 of the project believing that these expanded objects will address ESA concerns in a fashion that outweighs the Council's lower priority for expanded research projects. However, the Council agrees with the ISRP and the project sponsors that Objectives 4 and 5 could be deferred. The Council does not recommend funding those two objectives at this time. Funds for the base of this project and for the expansion of the ongoing objects would come from the base allocation for the provinces.

Project 30001 received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and a fundable recommendation from the ISRP. NOAA Fisheries supported the project, again unsurprising, noting that the project addressed RPAs 158 and 162. The Council supports funding the project as another important research opportunity to address ESA concerns that would outweigh the Council's lower priority on new research projects.

Funds for the new Project 30001 would come from the unallocated placeholder since funding this project would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces. Though given a High Priority designation from CBFWA and supported by the ISRP and NOAA Fisheries, the Council does not recommend funding project 30002 at this time. The Council's reasoning is based upon the ISRP comments on this project and upon budgetary constraints. ISRP stated that "since we see nothing fundamentally wrong with this proposal's presentation, we recommend funding. However, we also believe that this proposal is a couple of years ahead of its useful time and that it could be deferred if funding limitations required." [Emphasis added.] The Council believes that other projects that implement ESA actions and provide results in the time period of the current FCRPS Biological Opinion during this tight budget situation should outweigh implementation of this research proposal. Project 30002 could be better sequenced at a later time to take advantage of the information gained from the expansion of Project 199801400.

The Council finds that the other proposals, 30010 and 30007, should be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration. Project 30010 is clearly an ocean research proposal and does not fit within the geographic scope of the Lower Columbia and Estuary Provincial review. It is more appropriately considered in the Mainstem/Systemwide review along with other ocean research projects.

Project 30007 also involves ocean research, but has research elements for the plume and near shelf that could be considered under the Lower Columbia and Estuary review. Although given a Do Not Fund recommendation by CBFWA, the ISRP rated this project as fundable, but recommended funding at a reduced level from the proposal. Both NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville suggested moving the project to the Mainstem/Systemwide review, BPA noting that the project could coordinate with a similar NOAA Fisheries proposal on acoustic tracking. The Council agrees with these comments and would suggest reviewing the project in the Mainstem/Systemwide process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

See comments on 35046. Specifics of the collaboration with 35046, as proposed in the Mainstem and Systemwide response loop, need further discussion. Fundable in Part (Qualified) at a reduced level of support, disagree with CBFWA. Development of the final design for the acoustic arrays is high priority. This is an innovative but expensive research project that could provide new and important insights into the early sea-life of salmonids and their use of the ocean environment. However, as we have noted in previous reviews, the funding for proposals in this province will be very competitive. The ISRP suggests though that it would be a reasonable process to discuss the final array design with the proponents and to develop an incremental budget over the next few years.

"the logistics of deploying the equipment and gathering the data from fish tagged at various locations will require extensive effort over a wide geographic area. Deployment of equipment in the ocean will require significant R&D design effort (in particular, we intend to place the entire array sub-surface so that surface floats vulnerable to vessel traffic, fishing activities, and "curious" individuals are eliminated). Designs have been developed and partially field-tested for deploying the equipment on a semi-permanent basis to withstand the severe conditions that may be encountered at various sampling sites."

In general, fairly comprehensive responses were provided for most of the ISRP concerns. The author noted that he will comply with the requirements of the Innovative proposal and that the work is now complete. He noted that there do remain issues with the deployment of the acoustic detection arrays but also noted the recent success of deployments in the Atlantic Ocean. There was an additional discussion concerning an interaction with the NMFS Plume project to assist in the assessment of residence times and mortality rates. However, this would be an additional task that was not included in the Plume response and is not relevant for our consideration. The major issue of concern is how to scale the development of these acoustic arrays. The authors have proposed a deployment plan and argued that a critical mass of receivers are required and that the preferred strategy is multiple array lines (compared to fewer lines with more receivers per line). The authors provide adequate justification for this strategy but a minimum number of line arrays were not specified (although a proposed number was suggested).

CBFWA Estuary Review Comments:

Reviewers believe this proposal may be better suited for the Systemwide Province since this issue is not exclusive to the estuary. If the tracking could be scaled down to include only the plume, then the project could be considered for review in the Estuary. The project sponsor should resubmit this proposal for the Mainstem and Systemwide solicitation.

NOTE: The ISRP reviews from the Estuary Provincial review for proposals 30007 and 30010 should be considered in any Council decision on funding of these proposals through the Mainstem and Systemwide project selection process.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Benefits are indirect. Could provide a system to track juvenile and adult salmon out of the Columbia River and through the coastal shelf from northern California to the Alaskan peninsula

Comments
The key elements of this project have been incorporated into NMFS Project No. 35046. NMFS understands that project 35065 was not resubmitted by the sponsor under the Mainstem/Systemwide solicitation.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 2, 2003

Comment:

NPCC Tier 3 [i.e., do not fund]. Currently in coordination with NMFS to integrate with Project 35046. BPA reduced proposed budget by one-half in light of previous discussion with sponsor and pending completion of discussion with NMFS on integration.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund (Tier 3)

Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
3. Other projects not recommended by staff

Comments:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Oct 2, 2003

Comment:

This is the second phase of the successfully completed innovative project. This project addresses stock-specific juvenile salmon migration rate, residency, and mortality in the Columbia River plume. The project has funding from two private foundations; BPA's contribution represents less than 10% of original proposal and of total project cost (and at a much reduced level consistent with the ISRP's recommendation.)

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$200,000	$1,500,000	$1,500,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website