Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Predator Removal: Large-scale patterns |
| Proposal ID | 199007800 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | James H. Petersen, Ph. D. |
| Mailing address | 5501A Cook-Underwood Road Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / jim_petersen@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | ?? |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Ongoing |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / 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
| 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 |
|---|
| 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
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 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 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1.1 |
$59,131 |
| Fringe |
|
$16,741 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,500 |
| Travel |
|
$11,898 |
| Indirect |
|
$33,923 |
| $123,193 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 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
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: no; New Funding: yes
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
Comment:
The MainSys SRT is concerned that this is a second year of work that was not identified in the FY 2000 proposal. Therefore, it has not been technically reviewed, or at the least the recommendation from this group last year did not reflect two years worth of study. This work is being flagged as new due to the addition of a second year of work and possible changes in study design.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 8, 2000
Comment:
Project No. 1990-078-00 is not recommended [by CBFWA] for any FY01 funding on page 54, yet on page 19 of Table 4, and page 9 of Table 3, ongoing funding is identified as $123,000.
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 8, 2000
Comment:
CBFWA comment: The MainSys SRT is concerned that this is a second year of work that was not identified in the FY 2000 proposal. Therefore, it has not been technically reviewed, or at the least the recommendation from this group last year did not reflect two years worth of study. This work is being flagged as new due to the addition of a second year of work and possible changes in study design.
BPA response: Table 3 of the DAIWP indicates that CBFWA has recommended funding this project at the requested level. Whereas, in the text on page 54, the ongoing funding recommendation is $0. It would be helpful if the DAIWP were consistent with itself. Interpretation of CBFWA's recommendation is difficult. Accordingly, assuming no additional funding is recommended, analysis and reporting of project results will be based on only one year of data from field sampling, and, therefore, will not represent the range of conditions that would most likely occur over time. In general, BPA believes that rigorous research and associated conclusions should be based on more than a single year of field sampling. Under the current recommendation of no additional funding in 2001, existing funds would be utilized to complete analysis and prepare a final report, anticipated by February, 2001.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
Comment:
Rationale: Project scheduled for completion with existing funds. Project was scheduled for completion of tasks in 2000.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
Comment: