Return to Proposal Finder FY 2001 Ongoing Proposal 199007800

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

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
No documents associated with this request


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Evaluate Predator Removal: Large-scale patterns
BPA Project Proposal Number 199007800
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory
Business acronym (if appropriate) USGS
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name James H. Petersen, Ph. D.
Mailing Address 5501A Cook-Underwood Road
City, State, Zip Cook, WA 98605
Phone 5095382299
Fax 5095382843
E-mail jim_petersen@usgs.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project ??
 
Review Cycle FY 2001 Ongoing
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Mainstem Columbia
 
Short Description Evaluate causes of large-scale geographic patterns in predation on juvenile salmon by northern Pikeminnow. Examine complex interactions of temperature, juvenile salmon, and juvenile American shad on predation patterns in mainstem rivers.
Target Species


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


Biological Outcomes of this project: The expected biological outcomes will be in the form of data that might be used to more effectively manage predation on juvenile salmonids or design system-wide improvements. Specific management outcomes that are possibilities include: +Increased or decreased removal of predators in part of the system to maximize survival of juvenile salmon, +Changes in the fishing regulations for American shad to decrease their abundance if they supplement predator growth, or, +Modification of passage conditions for American shad at dams.
Biological Data: The data available to measure biological outcomes are: +age and size data for northern Pikeminnow in the lower Columbia and lower Snake rivers (Friesen & Ward 1999, ODFW) +consumption indexing data throughout the system (Ward et al. 1995; ODFW, USGS) +diets and predation rates of northern Pikeminnow (Poe et al. 1991; USGS unpublished) +computed losses of salmonids due to predation and predator removal (ODFW publications)


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
2000 Completion of preliminary bioenergetic modeling for temperature and diet effects on growth of n. Pikeminnow
2000 Submission of BPA report on potential compensatory feeding following predator removal (June 2000)
1999 Publication of bioenergetics modeling methods for northern Pikeminnow (Petersen and Ward 1999)
1997 Conducted workshops to regional biologists on applications of bioenergetic modeling
1995 Publication of systemwide predation indexing results (Ward, Petersen, Lock, 1995)


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

n/a or no information


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1. Document large-scale variation in growth rate and fecundity of northern Pikeminnow. a. Collate and test age and growth models FY00 $ 0  
2. Test temperature hypothesis. Conduct bioenergetic tests of the upriver versus downriver differences in temperature on predator growth. a. Compare upriver and downriver temps. b. Conduct energetic simulations and tests FY00-01 FY01-02 $ 30,000  
3. Test diet/American shad hypothesis. Collect field data and conduct bioenergetic tests of upriver versus downriver differences in temperature on predator growth. a. Collect diet data from field b. Process diet data (ODFW) c. Measure seasonal growth rates d. Conduct energetic simulations and tests e. Write final report. FY00-02 FY00-02 FY00-02 FY01-02 FY02 $ 93,193  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2002
$ 60,000


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

n/a or no information


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

n/a or no information


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2001 Cost
Personnel FTE: 1.1 $ 59,131
Fringe $ 16,741
Supplies $ 1,500
Travel $ 11,898
Indirect $ 33,923
Total Itemized Budget $123,193


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 project cost $123,193
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2001 budget request $123,193
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

I had submitted the original proposal (Dec. 1998) hoping to complete field work for the first year in summer/fall 1999, and then submit a revised proposal for an additional field year. I had not included a budget estimate for FY01 in the original proposal, planning to put it into the revised proposal. Money for the work was not available until February 2000, so field work will begin this year. The increase does not change the scope of work, it simply covers a second year of data collection (summer/fall 2001).


Reason for change in scope

There is no change in scope. The effort in FY01 is the same as the effort in FY00, it is just a second field year.


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2002
Construction/implementation $ 60,000
Total Outyear Budgets $ 60,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Reviews and Recommendations

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

This project has not yet been reviewed

Return to top of page