FY 1999 proposal 9079

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

Additional documents

Title	Type
9079 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Inventory Resident Fish Populations in Bonneville, Dalles, John Day Res.
Proposal ID	9079
Organization	U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	James H. Petersen
Mailing address	5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605-9701
Phone / email	5095382299 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Lower Columbia / Lower Columbia Mainstem
Short description	Inventory resident fish populations in the Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day Reservoirs of the Columbia River
Target species

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

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		$112,066
Fringe		$31,379
Supplies		$19,525
Operating		$7,880
Travel		$3,600
Indirect		$66,291
Subcontractor		$0
		$240,741

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$240,741
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$240,741
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: Sampling permits will be required. Sampling will be done in February and March to avoid salmonids.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:
Not fundable

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: ISRP said the region needs information on status and trends of resident fish in the mainstem reservoirs. We would like to develop an inventory and look at the relationships between species. The study has the following objectives: 1) Develop standardized sampling methods, design, strict guidelines. (Through the first year). 2) Use the methods to assess status of resident fish in 3 reservoirs (second and third years). The fourth year will be the final write up phase. This project meets

Council measures 10.1a and 10.1a.2 and lays the groundwork for assessing resident fish throughout the area.

Questions/Answers:

What do Oregon and Washington managers think of this project? Are these species generally ignored in the multi-million dollar projects? Answer: There is a lot of work going on in the area but it is not focused on resident fish.

What historical pre-impoundment data are available to give a “baseline” to the “baseline”? Answer: There is not a lot of information. There was one paper done on the Hanford Reach.

What are the target species? Answer: All species. We will test the efficiency of a variety of sampling gear to find out what gear combination will sample the greatest number of species.

Do you plan to summarize all of the information that has already been collected for these reservoirs first? Answer: Yes.

Is the sampling adequate? The protocol calls for sampling in February and March. Answer: We need to conduct the sampling when there are minimal effects on outmigrating salmonids. We are trying to be sensitive to migratory passages for adults and juvenile salmonids. The sampling is hindered by listed species.

How will this basic research translate into implementation? What is outcome of this information, given all programs already going? Answer: We will communicate the results (in terms of how resident fish populations are changing and what would be the effects of changes in river management) and coordinate with the other agencies and groups that need it.

Do you anticipate that the information will be related to exotic fish or native fish? Answer: Both (depending on sampling methods). We have smallmouth bass, walleye, carp etc. We will also troll for other fish to get a better data set for whole community.

Screening Criteria: No. The project doesn't meet Council Measure and doesn't meet criteria 1.B or 1.C.

Technical Criteria: No. The project does not meet criteria 5,6,7, and 10. This appears to be basic research with no link to implementation and no direct benefits to resident fish. It is unclear how a loss assessment will be determined based on new sampling methods.

Programmatic Criteria: No. The project doesn't meet criteria 11, 12, 15, and 16.

General Comment: There has been a lot of work in these pools. They could compile an inventory from that work.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

See CBFWA Committee Comments

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

ISRP reviewers commend this as a good, basic proposal that is endorsed in NMFS and Council programs. They ask if the study intends to inventory all species, given that methods will vary with different species. If funded, this project should be coordinated with 9081.