Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Influence of Marine-Derived Nutrient Influx on CRB Salmonid Production |
| Proposal ID | 9136 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Matthew G. Mesa and Patrick J. Connolly |
| Mailing address | Columbia River Research Laboratory
5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / matt_mesa@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Establish 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
| 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 |
|---|
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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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:
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.