FY 2000 proposal 199102800
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Monitoring Smolt Migrations of Wild Snake River Sp/Sum Chinook |
Proposal ID | 199102800 |
Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Stephen Achord/Gene Matthews |
Mailing address | 2725 Montlake Blvd. East Seattle, WA 98112-2097 |
Phone / email | 5095477518 / Steve.Achord@noaa.gov or |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
Short description | Collect time series information to examine migrational characteristics of wild ESA-listed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon stocks. Mark wild spring/summer chinook salmon parr with PIT-tags annually; intercept and decode tagged smolts as they pass |
Target species | Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon. |
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
Year | Accomplishment |
1997 |
Documented migrational timings of individual and combined populations of wild Snake River sp/sum. chinook salmon smolts at dams. |
1997 |
Migrational timings of these wild fish populations at traps and dams were used for real-time management of the hydropower system operations and water budget usage. |
1997 |
Documented environmental conditions within some streams where PIT-tagged wild parr reside. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
8909800 |
Idaho Supplementation Studies |
Screw Trap operations in 9102800 study streams critical for assessing relationships between fish movement and environmental factors. |
9202604 |
Spring Chinook Salmon Early Life History/ODFW |
9102800 timing information includes fish from some Oregon streams. |
8909802 |
Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers |
Screw Trap operations in Secesh/Lake Creeks critical for assessing relationships between fish movement and environmental factors |
9105100 |
Evaluation of the predictions of the run-timing of wild migrant spring/summ |
This project uses fish tagged for project 9102800. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
Personnel |
|
$114,300 |
Fringe |
|
$23,700 |
Supplies |
|
$54,700 |
Operating |
|
$26,000 |
PIT tags |
15,000 |
$43,500 |
Travel |
|
$22,400 |
Indirect |
|
$50,600 |
Subcontractor |
PSMFC |
$50,000 |
| $385,200 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $385,200 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $385,200 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
N/A |
|
$0 |
unknown |
Total project cost (including BPA portion) |
|
$0 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Acquisition of State of Idaho Collectors Permits and/or ESA-Permits may effect schedules.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund. OK for multiyear funding, review on 3-5 year timeframe
Comments:
This is an adequate proposal to continue a smolt monitoring project that provides invaluable data basic to making management decisions affecting the stocks involved. The project objectives (Section 4) are formulated as data-gathering and information-providing tasks, rather than as statements of desired outcomes (i.e., to find out if X exists or whether Y is performing better than Z, etc.). Therefore, the project would seem to be more a data-gathering exercise than true research. Some genuine research questions (problems) are touched on in the narrative. These should be incorporated in the objectives. The data-gathering and info-providing functions should be discussed as methods toward the revised objectives. Any statistical design is lacking in the proposal and should be included.
The proposal to install and operate a new rotary screw trap in Lower Big Creek seems unjustified to reviewers. The presentation of this as a "wonderful opportunity" seemed a matter of convenience only. In a biological (and wild chinook management) sense, why would a new trap site be worth the allocation of resources?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Not coordinated well with managers. Data could be collected in conjunction with other studies. Concerns with tagging populations on the verge of extinction. Data gathered may not be worth the risk to the populations. Information only marginally useful. Objective 4 not supported by co-managers. This project is viewed by NMFS as a requirement under the Biological Opinion.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? No - Is there a justifiable need to continue collecting these data? The impacts to the population (particularly as a result of electrofishing) appear greater than the information need.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$350,000 |
$350,000 |
$350,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website