FY 1999 proposal 9047

Additional documents

TitleType
9047 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleUse Unsteady Flow to Aid Mainstem Passage of Junenile Salmonids
Proposal ID9047
OrganizationOak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSteve Bao
Mailing addressP.O. Box 2008, MS-6036 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036
Phone / email4234751755 / y29@ornl.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Mainstem
Short descriptionTest the hypothesis that river flow hydraulics can aid fish migrations. Develop operation strategies for reservoir-river to provide unsteady and turbulent flows that are more favorable for successful migration of juvenile salmonids in Snake River.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $113,000
Fringe $41,750
Supplies $350
Travel $3,600
Indirect $35,000
Subcontractor $0
Other $6,000
$199,700
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$199,700
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$199,700
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)


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:

Comments:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes: This is a hydraulic modeling study to measure the effect of pulsed flows. It is unclear what management decision would follow based on study results.

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 (Marginal)
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The ISRP review observed that this study is predicated on the presumption -- possibly not well founded -- that Army Corps of Engineers stream data are readily available for use in mathematical models. The reviewers suggest that the proposal may exaggerate the importance of the work described. They add that the proposal should be a three-dimensional model rather than two-dimensional. Reviewers also note that the proposal does not advance plans for field-testing and that it assumes that unsteady river flow will be of benefit. They also ask if there is substantive literature to support the assumed relationship between unsteady flow and fish migration.