FY 1999 proposal 199204101
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Adult Migration in Lwr Col. River and Tributaries |
| Proposal ID | 199204101 |
| Organization | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District (COE) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Bob Dach |
| Mailing address | CENWP-PE-E P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 |
| Phone / email | 5038084774 / robert.l.dach@usace.army.mil |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem / Mainstem |
| Short description | Assess the success of adult salmon and steelhead passage at dams and reservoirs on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers; assess fish facility operations and potential modifications; assess spill operations and other flow augmentation strategies. |
| 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 |
There are no COE Charges for any of these items, this is the BPA portion of the contractor charges. |
$127,500 |
| Fringe |
|
$48,750 |
| Supplies |
|
$142,500 |
| Travel |
|
$18,750 |
| Indirect |
|
$37,500 |
| Subcontractor |
National Marine Fisheries Service; University of Idaho |
$0 |
| $375,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $375,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $375,000 |
| 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: Extremely high flow may warrant a delay, eliminating a particular species, or the entire year.
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 - Yes
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Incomplete: No end in sight. Needs wrap up funds for FY01 or explanation of future efforts.
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete: Need personnel resumes.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Hold at FY98 funding - proposal did not indicate a significant change in scope
Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
Objectives and methods for data collection and monitoring are not adequately described. Relationships of proposed activities and tasks to recovery of salmon stocks are not adequately described. The reviewers comment that the proposal needs a greatly expanded discussion of intended methods. Vitae of key personnel are missing.