FY 2000 proposal 20025

Additional documents

TitleType
20025 Narrative Narrative
20025 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDeschutes River Stray Summer Steelhead Assessment
Proposal ID20025
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameTony Nigro
Mailing addressP.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207
Phone / email5038725252 / Tony.Nigro@state.or.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionReview available information to determine the magnitude and cause of stray summer steelhead entering the Deschutes River, Oregon, and identify potential solutions.
Target speciesSummer Steelhead
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
8903500 Umatilla Hatchery O&M One potential source of stray fish
8805302 Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities One potential source of stray fish
8805301 Northeast Oregon Outplanting Facilities One potential source of stray fish
Comprehensive Review of Columbia Basin Artificial Production Could help identify cause of stray problem.
20511 Deschutes River Umbrella Proposal
9404200 Trout Creek Habitat Restoration Project
9303000 Buck Hollow Watershed Restoration Project

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 $30,221
Fringe $12,088
Supplies $2,010
Travel $3,900
Indirect @ 35.5% $17,118
$65,337
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$65,337
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$65,337
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
BPA Stray Steelhead Assessment $65,337 unknown
ODFW Office space and equipment $10,000 unknown
ODFW Hatchery data retrieval $2,500 unknown
WDW Hatchery data retrieval $2,500 unknown
USFWS Hatchery data retrieval $2,500 unknown
IDFG Hatchery data retrieval $2,500 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Project startup will be dependent upon selection of a qualified/experienced project leader.


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. Proposal was technically inadequate due to lack of methodological detail, but reviewers encourage resubmission of a more complete proposal next year.

Comments: If done properly, this proposal offers the potential to meet an important biological need. The objectives are fairly clear, but technical details of the activities are inadequate and pose a challenge in establishing the dimensions of the task and whether or not one year and this budget are sufficient. Reviewers are left to speculate, then, if the proposal is based on sound scientific principles and if the objectives are fully defined. The proponents should offer more information on analytical methods and in describing individual tasks under objectives 1 and 2. Most are simply one sentence declaratives, e.g., "Determine theā€¦.." without adequate explanation. Why this activity is not being done already by some agency is unclear. The need for BPA funding should be more clearly established.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - Need to provide more detail on how objectives will be accomplished.

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

This project addresses a specific need identified for ESA.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting];