FY 2000 proposal 20149
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop Research Priorities for Fall Chinook in the Columbia River Basin |
| Proposal ID | 20149 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dennis D. Dauble |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 999, MSIN: K6-85 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093763631 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Conduct a synthesis of ongoing and planned fall chinook salmon research, examine the factors that have resulted in successful fall chinook populations (i.e., Hanford Reach) and apply this knowledge to other locations in the Columbia Basin. |
| Target species | Fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) |
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 |
|---|
| 20541 |
Snake River fall chinook salmon studies/Umbrella Proposal |
|
| 9105 |
Determine if salmon are successfully spawning below lower Columbia main st… |
|
| 9131 |
Evaluate fall chinook and chum spawing, production, and habitat use in the… |
|
| 9102900 |
Life history and survival of fall chinook salmon in Columbia River basin |
|
| 9403400 |
Assessing summer and fall chinook salmon restoration in the Snake River ba… |
|
| 9406900 |
A spawning habitat model to aid recovery plans for Snake River fall chinook |
|
| 9603301 |
Supplement and enhance the two existing stocks of Yakima R. fall chinook |
|
| 9701400 |
Evaluation of juvenile fall chinook stranding on the Hanford Reach |
|
| 9801003 |
Monitor and evaluate the spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook… |
|
| 9801004 |
Monitor and evaluate yearling Snake River fall chinook released upstream o… |
|
|
Assessment of the impacts of development and operation of the Columbia Riv… |
|
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 |
|
$31,782 |
| Fringe |
|
$5,962 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| Travel |
|
$5,087 |
| Indirect |
|
$9,313 |
| Other |
Duplicating |
$450 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$17,486 |
| $70,080 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $70,080 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $70,080 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Coordination of researcher availability
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. The approach described may be more appropriately undertaken by an independent panel that is not receiving current funds in the Columbia River.
Comments:
This proposal is fundamentally a planning exercise to develop a research framework for fall chinook salmon. The project proposes to carry out extensive interviews and workshops so as to allow production of a "conceptual framework" for future fall chinook salmon research in the Columbia river system. The thrust of the argument seems to be that "the number of projects have increased to the point that informal yearly meetings are insufficient to develop long-term planning objectives for the entire Columbia River basin." While the number of projects is large, the proposal fails to demonstrate a problem that this has created.
An "umbrella" framework clearly would be beneficial for establishing goals and objectives, research requirements, coordinating activities, etc. However, it is not clear that the approach in this proposal would be effective in creating a useful and successful organization. A weakness in the proposed approach is that there is no mechanism identified for providing an ongoing process of review and direction. Even if the proposed work were completed successfully, it would result in only a "snapshot" summary. Further, the proposal should also indicate how agreement would be achieved among all the different agencies, etc. that must be involved if this effort is to be successful. Simply talking to everyone and/or inviting everyone to a workshop will likely not be sufficient. In three days of proposed workshops, how reasonable is it to expect consensus on a basin-wide research framework for all fall chinook salmon?
One reviewer identified a concern that the proponents have too much of their own jobs depending on successful funding of fall chinook research. Although they might not intend their final product to be self-serving, they certainly seem to be in a compromising position to produce such a document. Thus, the proposal may be a good idea but the proponents inappropriate. An "independent panel" could do the development of such a research plan with no current funding in the Columbia River.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - This is a proposal to conduct workshops. All of this is already being accomplished under the fall chinook studies. The proposal is a complete overlap with #20541.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? no -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This work can be done without targeted funding. Does not provide new information. This work can be included in existing annual review of BPA projects or other management forums.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];