FY 1999 proposal 9108

Additional documents

TitleType
9108 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluate Strobe Lights as a Juvenile Salmonid Guidance Behavioral Tool
Proposal ID9108
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameCharles Morrill
Mailing address600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone / email3607533009 / cfwdfw@aol.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Mainstem
Short descriptionTest strobe lights as tools to guide juvenile salmonids away from turbine intakes and induction slots and into the surface collector at Cowlitz Falls Dam. Hydroaccoustics, radio tagging, fyke and flume nets will be used to evaluate fish responses.
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 $152,300
Fringe $41,000
Supplies $172,900
Operating $11,000
Capital $248,900
Travel $16,800
Indirect $123,100
Subcontractor $421,700
$1,187,700
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$1,187,700
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$1,187,700
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)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Host workshops/tours on site to demonstrate application of technology


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

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: While the objectives are clear the proposal needs to establish up-front measurable criteria against which success is measured. An absolute increase in FGE to a pre-determines level must be realized or the method will not be considered viable. Specific time lines should be established to achieve the FGE objective, or project does not continue.

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes: With the establishment of measurable criteria.

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:

ISRP reviewers praised the proposal as well written and well documented, if quite expensive. Even if passing fish might not make it past lower dams, the reviewers suggest the study will yield important information and, if successful, could be a valuable model for implementation at mainstem dams. They also note that run-of-the-river fish may not be available for the study.