FY 1999 proposal 199800100

Additional documents

TitleType
199800100 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAnalytical Support-PATH and ESA Biological Assessments
Proposal ID199800100
OrganizationHinrichsen Environmental Services (HES)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRichard A. Hinrichsen
Mailing address302 NE 45th St., Suite B Seattle, WA 98105
Phone / email2066335725 / hinrich@accessone.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionFormulate alternative hypotheses, provide biological rationale, and develop and test model structures to identify key uncertainties in salmon and steelhead life-cycle survival processes..
Target speciesspring/summer chinook, fall chinook, steelhead
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
9600600 PATH - FACILITATION, TECH ASSISTANCE & PEER REVIEW Provide alternative hypothesis for PATH decision analysis, peer review of analytic methods
9600800 PATH (PLAN FOR ANALYZING AND TESTING HYPOTHESES) - PARTICIPATION Work with state agencies and tribes to develop retrospective and prospective analyses under PATH. Assist with peer review.
9700200 PATH -- UW TECHNICAL SUPPORT Develop alternative hypotheses for use in PATH. Provide biological rationale for alternative hyptheses.r
9601700 TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR PATH - CHAPMAN CONSULTING, INC.(NOW BIOANAL Recommend data of opportunity and areas of data scrutiny necessary for development of alternative models.
9303701 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH THE LIFE CYCLE MODEL Develop and implement analytical methods for analyzing life-cycle data

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 Hinrichsen at $75/hour for 1,306 hours $97,950
Travel Workshop and meeting attendance for PATH $2,000
Subcontractor Evans-Hamilton $19,950
$119,900
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$119,900
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$119,900
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)


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:


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is well written, referenced and technically adequate. It is integrated with PATH. The objectives, tasks and hypotheses are good. However, there is no indication of what climate data will be used and how it will be analyzed. It ranked in the middle top of the set. It gives no clear hypotheses other than regime scale forcing, and the methods are somewhat vague (what data?).