FY 1999 proposal 9115

Additional documents

TitleType
9115 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDevelop TDG Abatement Plan of Action Using Wheels Pools and Falls Approach
Proposal ID9115
OrganizationSun Mountain Reflections (SMR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameFaith E. Ruffing
Mailing address1907 NE 75 th Avenue Portland, OR 97213
Phone / email5032568748 / Faith.Ruffing@gte.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Snake, Willamette and Rogue
Short descriptionSMR will work with regional entities to develop a Plan of Action using a new approach to achieve TDGS water quality standard downstream of hydroelectric projects in the Columbia Basin by 2017 and provide safe continuous fish passage at these projects.
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
9300802 Symptoms of Gas Bubble Trauma due to Gas Supersaturation Abatement of TDGS
9602400 Survival of migrating juvenile salmonids Reducing TDGS below dams to the WQ standard and providing safe passage should improve survival
9602100 Gas bubble disease monitoring and research of juvenile salmonids Information from this and other research will be used to assess the efffectiveness of the plan of action
8740100 Travel time and survival smolt physiology Information from this and other research will be used to assess the efffectiveness of the plan of action

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 $30,000
Fringe $10,000
Supplies $5,000
Subcontractor $0
$45,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$45,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$45,000
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: Review process may take longer than anticipated. Milestones are completion of plans


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 - Incomplete: It is impossible from the proposal to determine if the ideas are sound. Theoretically they may be, but in implementation the efficacy is unclear.

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: We can't determine from the proposal what the actual product would be.

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Incomplete

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete It is unclear that the proposer has sufficient engineering experience to develop the proposed design.


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.

Cost issues. Proposed budget and/or out-year costs were unknown or judged to be high in relation to the cost of similar projects or activities.


Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

Reviewers comment that the intended study appears overly simplistic and is deficient in development and technical detail.