FY 1999 proposal 199007800

Additional documents

TitleType
199007800 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluate Predator Control and Provide Technical Support For PATH
Proposal ID199007800
OrganizationU.S. Geological Survey, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames H. Petersen
Mailing address5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605
Phone / email5095382299 / jim_petersen@usgs.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionExamine existing data to test the hypothesis that compensatory predation on juvenile salmon is not occurring in response to northern squawfish removals. Provide analyses and technical support for PATH .
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
9007700 Northern Squawfish Management Program Provide supporting analyses to cooperating agencies.
9600600 PATH - Facilitation and Technical Assistance; ESSA Technologies Provide analyses, data, reports, etc. for the PATH group. Attend meetings and workshops.
9601700 Technical Support for PATH; Don Chapman Consulting Provide assistance with fall chinook salmon analyses
9600800 PATH - Participation by state and tribal agencies; ODFW Provide assistance with fall chinook salmon and steelhead analyses

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 Primarily J. H. Petersen $29,030
Fringe 28% of personnel costs $8,124
Supplies Software $500
Travel Workshops, non-local meetings $2,000
Indirect Agency rate: 38% of direct costs $15,069
Subcontractor $0
$54,723
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$54,723
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$54,723
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: No constraints foreseeable.


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 - Yes

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Low participation
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

Methods are well described. This study may suggest the direction in which predator control proposal number 9007700 should proceed, whether or not that proposal is funded. ISRP reviewers note that the proposal has two components: predator control and PATH meeting attendance, and that while the former is rated in the proposal, the proposal for the latter activity is marginal. The reviewers would prefer that requests for funds to attend PATH meetings be justified in a separate proposal and in an overall umbrella proposal for all PATH components.