Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Estuarine & Nearshore-ocean Migratory Behavior of Juvenile Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 9035 |
| Organization | National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS/NWFSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Richard D. Ledgerwood |
| Mailing address | Point Adams Biological Sta. P.O. Box 155 Hammond, OR 97121-0155 |
| Phone / email | 5038611853 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Ocean/estuary |
| Short description | Compare migration pattersn in Feb-Ap of juvenile chinook reared inTerminal Fishery Project & tracked through Columbia R. estuary to ocean using sonic tags. |
| 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
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 |
|
$67,600 |
| Fringe |
|
$29,300 |
| Supplies |
|
$19,500 |
| Travel |
|
$1,700 |
| Indirect |
|
$41,800 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $159,900 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $159,900 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $159,900 |
| 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: Study fish not made available by CEDC.
Describe major milestones if necessary.
Fish are normally transferred to CEDC at subyearling-age from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife facilities (Willamette River hatchery) in November and reared through the winter to yearling-age for release in the spring. If fish were unavailable for net-pen rearing, they would be unavailable for this study. In addition, the proposed February tagging is contingent upon representative fish attaining sufficient size (>125-mm fork-length) for tagging.
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 - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.Duplicates ongoing work. Some or all of proposed activities are similar or identical to work already funded. Better knowledge or coordination of past or ongoing projects would have reduced or eliminated project need.
Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The study design is inadequate and not well defined. The idea to force fish into the ocean before they naturally would is not based on sound science. There is no indication of what level of sampling may be necessary to make the intended inferences. The sampling size described appears extremely small. The proposal’s linkage to Youngs Bay net pen study is good.