FY 2000 proposal 198506200
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Passage Improvement Evaluation |
| Proposal ID | 198506200 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Duane A. Neitzel |
| Mailing address | MS K6-85, P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093760602 / duane.neitzel@PNL.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Evaluate the biologic and hydrologic effectiveness of juvenile fish passage facilities constructed to correct structural problems at irrigation diversion dams, canals and ditches that interfere with the passage of anadromous fish |
| Target species | Juvenenile salmonids |
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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1998 |
Completed on-site evaluations of Phase II screens in the Yakima Basin (report in progress) |
| 1998 |
Completed laboratory studies testing salmonid response to infrasound and strobe lights (report in progress) |
| 1997 |
Completed on-site evaluations of Phase II screens in the Yakima Basin (Blanton, Neitzel, and Abernethy, in press). |
| 1997 |
Completed laboratory studies testing salmonid response to infrasound (Mueller RP, DA Neitzel, WV Mavros and TJ Carlson. 1998. Evaluation of low and high frequency sound for enhancing fish screening facilities to protect outmigrating salmonids |
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 |
based on FY1999 estimate |
$29,300 |
| Fringe |
based on FY1999 estimate |
$18,700 |
| Supplies |
based on FY1999 estimate |
$21,600 |
| Operating |
|
$0 |
| Travel |
based on FY1999 estimate |
$5,500 |
| Indirect |
based on FY1999 estimate |
$24,900 |
| $100,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $100,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $100,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: The evaluation schedule is constrained by the irrigation season and spring outmigration.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund. Group the fish screening projects into a set (8506200, 9105710, 9107500, 9200900, 9503300) and fund for four years. The ISRP should review again in 2003.
Comments:
This is a good proposal. It clearly describes the work to be accomplished, the underlying assumptions, and methods. This proposal had a good general description of the programmatic need for this work and the relationship to other projects. The difference between Phase I and Phase II sites/activities should be explained early in the document. The specific purpose of the strobe and ultrasound experiments could be better defined. The proposal should indicate the specific amount of time each individual is budgeted. Are there a known number of designs to be tested or is technical support under Task I-B simply for work to be provided on an as-needed basis?
The proposal should describe the context of the passage improvement project within the overall program. The writers refer vaguely to "many problems" that need to be evaluated without providing much detail. The methods section did not offer much more detail. The stated objectives were measurable, however. The proposal writers did a convincing job of describing the usefulness of their facilities to address this research and communicate the results. In the future, all the fish screening projects in the Yakima Basin should be placed in an umbrella proposal.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
How does this project break up between the different states? Is this only for the WA segment? Although a long history of BPA funding exists for these projects, they should be funded under another source. For subsequent construction and O&M, we recommend transferring the responsibility to the Bureau of Reclamation starting in FY01.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Consider integrating these projects to save money. Why do we need two O and M contracts?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $110,551 |
$110,551 |
$110,551 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website