Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Eval. of Fall Chinook Production & Habitat Conditions in Lw.Tucannon River |
| Proposal ID | 9008 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Arthur E. Viola, Joe Bumgarner
Mark Schuck |
| Mailing address | 401 S Cottonwood St. Dayton, WA 99328 |
| Phone / email | 5093824755 / Snakeriv@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Tucannon |
| Short description | Determine origin of fall chinook found in Lwr. Tucannon River of SE Washington, & if these fish represent a self-sustaining population; identify factors limiting production. |
| Target species | |
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 |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$58,682 |
| Fringe |
|
$9,799 |
| Supplies |
|
$3,000 |
| Operating |
|
$1,000 |
| Tag |
|
$2,900 |
| Travel |
|
$1,550 |
| Indirect |
|
$14,997 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $91,928 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $91,928 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $91,928 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: During some years extreme river flows may preclude successful redd capping and trapping of juvenile salmon. ESA concerns may prevent us from disturbing natural fall chinook redds. In this case we will have to apply for a modification to our section 10 permit or use the results from artificial redds created as natural as possible without using egg baskets. We would also need to request a modification to our section 10 permit for approval to PiT tag more fish. Because this project is not scheduled to begin until 1999 we will have time to request these changes.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Not urgent enough yet - defer
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
We agree the study should determine the origin of the fish, identify current habitat conditions, and conduct intra-gravel survival studies. However, the sample size appears small for the egg basket study. The limiting factor analysis is not complete. For example, food supply factors are missing.