FY 2000 proposal 199800100
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199800100 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199800100 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Analytical Support-PATH and ESA Biological Assessments |
| Proposal ID | 199800100 |
| Organization | Hinrichsen Environmental Services (HES) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Richard A. Hinrichsen |
| Mailing address | 302 NE 45TH ST STE B Seattle, WA 98105 |
| Phone / email | 2066335725 / hinrich@accessone.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Participate in PATH. Provide biological rationale for hypotheses, and develop and test model structures that identify key uncertainties in salmon life-cycle survival processes. Design alternative adaptive management experiments that maximize learning. |
| Target species | Spring Chinook, Fall Chinook, Steelhead, Sockeye |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1998 | co-authored Preliminary Decision Analysis Report on Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook [Marmorek and Peters (eds.)] in March 1998. Developed model structures rationale for the ocean-regime shift hypothesis for Appendix A . |
| 1998 | Co-developed and refined fall chinook life-cycle model. |
| 1998 | Reviewed and contributed extensively to the PATH Weight of Evidence report during May to August, 1998. Tested alternative post-hydrosystem mortality hypotheses with retrospective data. |
| 1998 | Conducted and documented numerous sensitivity analyses regarding harvest and drawdown for spring/summer chinook prospective model, testing how robust conclusions were to alternative assumptions. |
| 1998 | Presented diagnostics for the spring/summer Delta version of the chinook life cycle model and wrote a report entitled "Influence of Exceptional Spawner-Recruit data of the John Day Middle Fork on the Delta Model Parameters." |
| 1998 | Test for correlation between extra mortality of naturally produced Snake River spring/summer chinook and hatchery releases. Co-authored a memo with C. Paulsen, June 12, 1998. |
| 1998 | Described in detail the difficulties of working with an unbalanced design to determine and weight key uncertainties in the PATH decision support analysis. Co-authored a corresponding report with Charles Paulsen. |
| 1998 | See accomplishments of umbrella proposal (9600600). |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9600600 | PATH-FACILITATION, TECH ASSISTANCE AND PEER REVIEW | |
| 9303701 | TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH THE LIFE CYCLE MODEL | |
| 9601700 | TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR PATH - CHAPMAN CONSULTING, INC.(NOW BIO…) | |
| 9700200 | PATH -- UW TECHNICAL SUPPORT | |
| 20515 | Mainstem Columbia River Umbrella Project | |
| 9600800 | PATH (PLAN FOR ANALYZING AND TESTING HYPOTHESES) -PARTICIPATION |
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 | 1538 hours at $80/hr | $123,040 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Travel | Workshop and meeting attendance for PATH. | $1,960 |
| $125,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $125,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $125,000 |
| 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: Litigation among agencies. Unexpected delays in 1999 decision on Snake River. uncertain. Unexpected problems with run reconstructions and model development.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. PATH, in its present form, with its present mission, should be phased out. A simpler process could be created to meet the continuing need for evaluation of the limited data now available to address management questions relative to the hydro biological opinion. A more ambitious and comprehensive scientific consensus process should be developed, somewhat along the lines of PATH, to address data collection design issues for the basin, to identify data needs that are critical to the actual management questions, and to ensure that data needs are met, to the extent practical, as quickly as possible, in a coordinated and efficient manner.Comments: The proposal is well written and clearly identifies the link between the objectives and programmatic needs. This proposal describes very clearly what is being pursued, but it is unclear how it will be used in the PATH analysis. It appears that such as chaotic dynamics will not simplify the modeling; thus, it is contrary to the SRP recommendation that the PATH models are already too complicated.
Comment:
Comment:
PATH projects reviewed in detail last year, little has changed. Question amount of hours. Needs to be related through an umbrella. Due to budget constraints, AFM suggests holding these projects to the FY99 funding level.Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? No - Scientific Review Panel did not support objective 1B (In the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Weight of Evidence Report).Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Question the role of the individual in the process. He was formerly funded under the Anderson - UW PATH contract. Funded occurred in 1998 without going through the process, question whether the UW contract decreased by the same amount when the funding moved from the contract?
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? No - In general, activities in support of PATH should be separated from BPA/COE assessment.
Resource Criteria 4: Met? No -
Fund for the transition period
Oct 29, 1999
Comment:
Fund for transition period. See the programmatic recommendation in project 9600600.Comment:
Money placed in BPA Tech Support Project Placeholder
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Funding subject to independent review: BPA non-discretionary (Technical Support Project Placeholder)