FY 2000 proposal 199900300

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: ESA permits, bad weather; atypical hydrograph; unknown complexity associated with the required level of spacial resolution and accuracy for tidal analysis; insufficient numbers of data points for habitat use resulting from lack of fish/ poor conditions.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Comments: This is an important project. It focuses on the possible existence of remnant or reestablished chinook populations that may have a potential for increased production. The proposal would benefit by inclusion of summaries of existing information on records of occurrence of chinook and chum salmon in the area, and of known spawning habitat requirements of the species (or references). The study plan seems overly ambitious. The focus ought to be on documenting that spawning occurs and an estimate of the numbers of adults involved. The value of the juvenile work is questionable. Questions that come to mind are: 1) How will juveniles produced by spawning in this area be distinguished from juveniles that have emigrated to the area from upstream? 2) What is the likelihood that enough such juveniles can be collected and marked to be able to expect enough recoveries to be able to estimate smolt to adult returns? (We suspect it is near zero.), 3) What management use would be served by the information on juveniles if it could be obtained?

It would be advisable to conduct a pilot study that would document the general magnitude of spawning that occurs, prior to attempting to relate spawning to a habitat profile. (In fact, general features of the habitat used for spawning might be immediately evident.) What if there is very little spawning that takes place? Thus the need for GIS/GPS is not evident.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The ISRP recognized that this is an important project, and commented that the proposal would benefit by inclusion of summaries of existing information on records of [spawning] chinook and chum salmon in the area. In the response, the project sponsor provides the information that spawning population estimates have been developed since 1997. Chinook spawning population estimates have ranged from 1,000 to 5,000. This is key information that puts a different complexion on questions that were raised by the ISRP.

The response satisfactorily answers the ISRP question "How will juveniles produced in the area be distinguished from juveniles that have emigrated into the area from upstream." They are expected to be smaller in size. The response from the project sponsor provides the information that during FY 1999 they feel that they were able to differentiate the juveniles by size.

The ISRP asked the question "What is the likelihood that enough juveniles can be collected and marked to be able to expect enough recoveries to be able to estimate smolt to adult returns?" The response from the project sponsor clarifies the point that this is a question the project will address in FY 2000. Prior information needed was to be able to establish the identity of juveniles from this area, along with an idea of their numbers. During this winter season, the project sponsor will calculate the number that must be tagged in order to be able to effectively estimate smolt to adult survival rates. They note that 25,000 to 50,000 fish are typically tagged from hatcheries for this purpose, which provides a target number. It remains to be seen whether enough fish of a size large enough for tagging can be captured in the spring.

The ISRP also advised that a pilot study be conducted to document the general magnitude of spawning. The response makes it clear that such a study has been conducted and that suitable information is available to provide a basis for proceeding.

There remains some uncertainty of success but little more than in most research investigations. Also, the responses would have been more effective if actual data had been presented.

Comment:

Comment: