FY 1999 proposal 9136

Additional documents

TitleType
9136 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleInfluence of Marine-Derived Nutrient Influx on CRB Salmonid Production
Proposal ID9136
OrganizationU.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMatthew G. Mesa and Patrick J. Connolly
Mailing addressColumbia River Research Laboratory 5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605
Phone / email5095382299 / matt_mesa@usgs.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionEstablish a system-wide, coordinated, and comprehensive research effort and management strategy to document the effects of nutrient influx on the productivity of CRB tributaries for anadromous salmonids.
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 $55,917
Fringe $15,657
Supplies $5,250
Travel $18,023
Indirect $36,041
Subcontractor $0
$130,888
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$130,888
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$130,888
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: Since implementation of objectives 2 and 3 require information derived from objective 1, scheduling could change slightly if completion of objective 1 is delayed. Also, depending on the outcome of objective 1, scheduling could change (i.e., be shorter or longer) for objectives 2 and 3.


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 difficult to review this proposal since its primary objective is to assemble a group to develop a research plan. Perhaps the out year objectives should be a separate proposal.

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes: For objective #1. The other objectives rely on the ability to measure nutrients before and after enrichment. There is no assessment included for improvements in salmon production.

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes: Dependent on the success of objective #1.

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete: Only addresses objective #1, but suggests several other objectives that would be accomplished. No out year costs are provided. However, if objective #1 represents 5% of the costs (as stated in proposal) the out year costs would be near three million.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is a well-prepared proposal on an innovative topic that was ranked in the upper third of the set. It includes good phasing of work and good strategy to enlist cooperators in developing a plan. It is rather open ended as to what would actually be done (leaves this to Phase I to decide). It needs more focus on the experimental aspects of the project, but deserves "seed money." It should be supported as an innovative, new approach.