Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Use Unsteady Flow to Aid Mainstem Passage of Junenile Salmonids |
| Proposal ID | 9047 |
| Organization | Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Steve Bao |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 2008, MS-6036 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6036 |
| Phone / email | 4234751755 / y29@ornl.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Mainstem |
| Short description | Test the hypothesis that river flow hydraulics can aid fish migrations. Develop operation strategies for reservoir-river to provide unsteady and turbulent flows that are more favorable for successful migration of juvenile salmonids in Snake River. |
| Target species | |
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$113,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$41,750 |
| Supplies |
|
$350 |
| Travel |
|
$3,600 |
| Indirect |
|
$35,000 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| Other |
|
$6,000 |
| $199,700 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $199,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $199,700 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $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:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes: This is a hydraulic modeling study to measure the effect of pulsed flows. It is unclear what management decision would follow based on study results.
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.
Recommendation:
Adequate (Marginal)
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The ISRP review observed that this study is predicated on the presumption -- possibly not well founded -- that Army Corps of Engineers stream data are readily available for use in mathematical models. The reviewers suggest that the proposal may exaggerate the importance of the work described. They add that the proposal should be a three-dimensional model rather than two-dimensional. Reviewers also note that the proposal does not advance plans for field-testing and that it assumes that unsteady river flow will be of benefit. They also ask if there is substantive literature to support the assumed relationship between unsteady flow and fish migration.