Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop TDG Abatement Plan of Action Using Wheels Pools and Falls Approach |
| Proposal ID | 9115 |
| Organization | Sun Mountain Reflections (SMR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Faith E. Ruffing |
| Mailing address | 1907 NE 75 th Avenue Portland, OR 97213 |
| Phone / email | 5032568748 / Faith.Ruffing@gte.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Snake, Willamette and Rogue |
| Short description | SMR 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
| 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 |
|---|
| 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
| 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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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:
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.