Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Incidence and Effects of Gas Bubble Trauma on Salmonid & Resident Fish |
| Proposal ID | 9080 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS-BRD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dena Gadomski, Craig Barfoot, Thomas Poe |
| Mailing address | 5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Determine the incidence and significance of gas bubble trauma (GBT) in salmonid fry and larval and juvenile resident fishes rearing in shallow shoreline areas where the ability to use depth for hydrostatic compensation is limited. |
| 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 |
|
$82,501 |
| Fringe |
|
$24,750 |
| Supplies |
|
$8,500 |
| Operating |
|
$11,000 |
| Travel |
|
$15,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$53,865 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $195,616 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $195,616 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $195,616 |
| 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: If sampling years (1999-2000) have low levels of supersaturation (low-flow years), an additional year of field work may be necessary.
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.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:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is a well-written proposal. There is a programmatic need for this work as this is an area of gas bubble trauma research that has not been addressed. This is a fairly straightforward study with field and lab components to be implemented by a knowledgeable staff. The proposal writers should describe why they emphasized habitats that are of limited extent in the basin.