FY 2000 proposal 199204101

Additional documents

TitleType
199204101 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLower Columbia River Adult Study
Proposal ID199204101
OrganizationU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMike Langeslay, CENWP - EC - E
Mailing addressPortland, District Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946
Phone / email5038084774 / mike.j.langeslay@nwp01.usace.army.mil
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionAssess the success of adult salmon, steelhead and lamprey passage through the Lower Columbia River hydropower system and into tributaries. Evaluate the effects on adult passage of specific flow and spill conditions and various adult passage improvements.
Target speciesChinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (O. mykiss) and Pacific lamprey (Lempetra tridentata)
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
1995 Install equipment and prepare protocol for collecting and processing fish movement data.
1995 Develop adult Pacific lamprey tagging method.
1998 Monitor fish movement at dams and into tributaries.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Lower Columbia River Adult Study Co-Sponsor

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 $80,000 of the $175,570 total $80,000
Fringe $0
Supplies $0
Other 600 of the 2000 radio transmitter tags $120,000
$200,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$200,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$200,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Corps of Engineers Dollars for 1400 tags (70%), personnel (54%), fringe benefits, supplies, travel, indirect costs, subcontractor costs. $1,300,904 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: This is a multi-year project that uses an adaptive approach. Our schedule may depend on how the region prioritizes 1999 LCARS report measures identified for further study, for example.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent upon full reporting of results from previous work and association of results to the Fish and Wildlife Program. (High priority)

Comments: This project is a large scale study of up-stream movement of adults but one that BPA provides only limited support ($200K, 13% of total). The ISAB's recent report on Adult Passage (ISRP 99-2) clearly indicates that this research is essential and that this investment is justified. Given the substantial COE funding and the relatively modest request from BPA, it may be appropriate to continue funding the research even though the proposal itself would not be rated as "excellent".

This proposal clearly describes the proposed and on-going work. However, the need for this additional work is not clear due to limited reporting of the results of previous work. In particular, insufficient information is provided on the results of the major (apparently almost identical) project that was completed during 1995-1998. The objectives are clear, but the measureables are not adequately described. An example would be the number of radio-tagged fish required to address the problem and obtain statistically significant results, based on previous work that has been done. The assumptions required by the experimental approach are not clearly identified, such as the strengths and weaknesses of the radio-tagging method (e.g. tag loss rates, malfunction rates, limitations on accuracy due to location of receivers, other potential sources of tag loss between dams, the possibility that tagged fish are not actually representative of the behavior and/or survival of untagged fish, etc.).

There are numerous typos in the references and in the text; there is unsatisfactory explanation of methods used to estimate the percentage of tagged fish that pass dams (are all "losses" assumed to be mortalities?); and the proposal's vaguely "adaptive" structure (tag or not tag during a given year depending on flow conditions) make it impossible to judge the merits of the proposed budget. If it has not already been done, it is advisable to test and confirm that tagged fish behave and perform the same as untagged fish (e.g. by using side-by-side swim endurance tests of tagged and untagged fish).


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Fund under MOA Capital source due to shortfall in Direct Program available funds.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes - Cost-shared with BPA. Important work that has provided insights leading to overall passage improvements. Important from an adaptive management perspective.

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Yes -

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes - Timely submission of annual/final reports needed.

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]