FY 2000 proposal 20099

Additional documents

TitleType
20099 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSystem for Salmon Migrating Through Dams
Proposal ID20099
OrganizationKrick Salmon Survival Systems
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameEdward Krick, CPA
Mailing address38720 Proctor Blvd, Ste 102 Sandy, OR 97055
Phone / email5036685615 / krick@novaport.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionSystem to reduce losses of Salmon Migrating Through Dams.
Target speciesAll Anadromous Smolts Migrating Past Dams
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

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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];