Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Determine if Salmon are Successfully Spawning Below Lower Columbia MS Dams |
| Proposal ID | 9105 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW, ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Joe Hymer |
| Mailing address | 2108 Grand Blvd. Vancouver, WA 98661 |
| Phone / email | 3609066740 / Hymerjah@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Lower Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Search for evidence of fall chinook spawning in the main stem Columbia below Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary dams. |
| Target species | Fall chinook and chum |
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 |
|
$78,935 |
| Fringe |
|
$23,806 |
| Supplies |
|
$4,500 |
| Operating |
|
$13,700 |
| Tag |
|
$150 |
| Travel |
|
$4,672 |
| Indirect |
|
$12,661 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| Other |
|
$29,900 |
| $168,324 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $168,324 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $168,324 |
| 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: Bad weather, high river flows.
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 - Incomplete: The determination of a juvenile survival estimate should be more thought out and documented. It is unclear if continued Jones Beach sampling by NMFS is available, and whether this is sufficient for developing a juvenile survival estimate.
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Incorporates 9131
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
ISRP reviewers consider this effort of extreme importance. The proposal itself is not well written, however, and the proposed methods for sampling design may not be the best. The reviewers comment that the work should be coordinated or combined with other studies on juveniles. In addition, ISRP members inquire if the proponents intend to survey areas other than Hamilton Slough and caution that visibility bias is possible in surveying redds. Spawners may not have coded wire tags, posing a further concern for the accuracy of the study.