Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Ocean Survival of Salmonids Relative to Migrational Timing, Fish Health… |
| Proposal ID | 9063 |
| Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NMFS/NWFSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Michael Schiewe, Ph.D. |
| Mailing address | 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, WA 98112 |
| Phone / email | 2068603270 / michael.schiewe@noaa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem / Ocean/estuary |
| Short description | Measure the effects of time of entry and smolt quality, food habits, growth, and bioenergetic status of juvenile coho and chinook salmon on survival in relation to oceanographic features of the nearshore ocean environment associated with Columbia River |
| Target species | Chinook (ocean & stream type) and coho (when available) |
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 |
|
$87,300 |
| Fringe |
|
$30,600 |
| Supplies |
|
$35,000 |
| Operating |
|
$1,200 |
| Capital |
|
$38,000 |
| Travel |
|
$3,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$36,600 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$545,000 |
| Other |
|
$11,000 |
| $788,200 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $788,200 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $788,200 |
| 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: ESA Section 7 permit for collection of juvenile salmon in the nearshore ocean. Charter of suitable vessel for collection of juvenile salmon in the nearshore ocean.
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 - Incomplete: Expand proposal to explain exactly how survival is to be measured and related to growth rate.
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
The AFM recommend funding this project at $300K from the ESA Reserve Account through FY00; therefore the CBFWA recommendation for Direct Program Funding is $0.00
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is very well written and well conceived. Other related research is well described. The CORIE system raises concerns and is a major portion of the proposal’s first year budget. The proposal does not describe or justify where the 12 stations will be located. Monitoring is not well described. The proposal is ambitious and perhaps should be run on a pilot basis for a year or two to see what is possible. Is BPA the appropriate funding source for this proposal? Does it match the Council RFP?