FY 2000 proposal 20099
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | System for Salmon Migrating Through Dams |
Proposal ID | 20099 |
Organization | Krick Salmon Survival Systems |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Edward Krick, CPA |
Mailing address | 38720 Proctor Blvd, Ste 102 Sandy, OR 97055 |
Phone / email | 5036685615 / krick@novaport.com |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | System to reduce losses of Salmon Migrating Through Dams. |
Target species | All Anadromous Smolts Migrating Past Dams |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
Personnel |
Project Management |
$15,000 |
Fringe |
Payroll Taxes |
$1,500 |
Supplies |
Feed and Miscellaenous |
$8,000 |
Operating |
Volunteer |
$0 |
Capital |
Volunteer |
$65,000 |
NEPA |
Compliance |
$1,500 |
PIT tags |
|
$1,000 |
Travel |
Meetings and Work Sites |
$4,000 |
Indirect |
Office, Telephone, Supplies |
$6,000 |
Other |
Reserve |
$8,000 |
Subcontractor |
Grad. Students/ Skilled Retirees |
$35,000 |
| $145,000 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $145,000 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $145,000 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund, technically inadequate, little likelihood of success.
Comments:
It is difficult to evaluate this proposal within a scientific review context. The proposal does not present a technical background or evidence for major assumptions in the proposal. For example, what is the evidence that "trained" hatchery fish would respond to feeding stimuli after release into the wild? Is there any evidence of "hatchery pathfinders to lead wild juveniles" into collectors? Increasing the survival of hatchery fish only would not be consistent with fish passage objectives for the Basin. Further, it is not clear how the proposal would reduce adult passage mortality.
In terms of our scientific review:
No references are provided. The authors support the proposal only with logical arguments.
The proposal depends on many unsupported and possibly invalid assumptions. There is no evidence provided that the proponent has even investigated the feasibility of the approach or the necessary assumptions (e.g. by conducting a literature review).
The objectives of the proposed work are not adequately described. For example, the proposal states that a tracking system will be built, but no details of this system are provided to evaluate it.
The proposal is very vague on the measureables that will be used to monitor and evaluate the success of the project. For example, there is no indication that the fish will be counted or video taped to confirm the success or failure of the new collectors.
There is also no evidence provided that the main proponent has a track record of previous success (e.g. peer-reviewed publications, contracts, etc.) in conducting this type of project.
In general the approach is poorly described and there is not enough information to fully evaluate it. For example, the hatchery which will be used to train the fish is not identified, the design of the new collectors is vague, and no details are provided of the methods that will be used to track the fish. The proposed number of PIT tags that will be used is also too few to accomplish the objectives. To proceed with his idea, the proponent should begin to develop a logical case. For example, start by training a test population of hatchery fish and then try to attract them to a collector device after release. We would also recommend collaboration with scientifically trained personnel to assist with preparation of the approaches (e.g., hypotheses or at least presentation of evidence) and proposals. At this time, however, there is inadequate technical basis for supporting this proposal.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Concur with FPAC comments.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? No - Not recommended. Proposal ignores evidence of contrary behavior by smolt, assuming isolated forebay collector can draw fish into entrances by conventional food. Recent studies show fish avoid most entrances.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];