FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200309900
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 |
|---|---|
| 35050 Narrative | Narrative |
| 35050 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | UW Offsite Habitat and Fish Survival Effectiveness Monitoring |
| Proposal ID | 200309900 |
| Organization | Univristy of Washington (UW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Robert C. Wissmar |
| Mailing address | SCHOOL OF AQUATIC AND FISHERY SCIENCES 355020, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020 |
| Phone / email | 2066543746 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | Mainstem/Systemwide |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / |
| Short description | |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 183 |
| 180 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 183 | NMFS | Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review proposals and monitor past and current projects | A | 2003-2007 | $53,183 | |
| Identification of statistical methods | B | 2003-2006 | $17,500 | Yes |
| Organize a Regional Monitoring Team (RMT) | C | 2003-2007 | $42,545 | |
| Develop and coordination a WEB SITE | D | 2003-2007 | $63,820 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review proposals and monitor past and current projects | 2004 | 2007 | $61,692 |
| Identification of statistical methods | 2004 | 2006 | $20,300 |
| Organize a Regional Monitoring Team (RMT) | 2004 | 2007 | $49,352 |
| Develop and coordination a WEB SITE | 2004 | 2007 | $74,031 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $177,048 | $205,377 | $238,237 | $276,355 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 50% faculty, 58% Gradstud., 15% computer support, 8% admin, 15% staff scientist | $64,868 |
| Fringe | Different rates apply according to UW benefit rate for faculty, staff and gardstud. | $17,359 |
| Supplies | Books, journals, misc. computer supplies | $5,000 |
| Travel | Regional meetings and conferences | $4,500 |
| Indirect | 26% excluding student fees and equip. | $36,533 |
| Subcontractor | Identification of statistical methods | $17,500 |
| Other | Service, lease and tuition fees | $31,288 |
| $177,048 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $177,048 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $177,048 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $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.
Do not fund - inadequate proposal
Aug 2, 2002
Comment:
The proposal is inadequate. The proposal is not clearly written, is not well-coordinated with action agencies and other proposed and ongoing monitoring programs within the basin, and it does not have enough methodological detail to provide a clear understanding of how the work will be done and what the products will be like. It isn't clear from the regional perspective why this project should be the one to do the activities described or that the activities described are even appropriate or possible.Action Agency/NMFS RME Group Comments:
HABITAT ACTION EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH SUBGROUP -- Does the Proposal address RPA Objectives?
Overall, the proposal offers a useful approach to developing a central design that provides guidance and criteria for monitoring management actions within the Columbia Basin. However, much of what is proposed is already well established or is currently being developed by the Action Effectiveness Research (AER) The proposal also intends to develop and coordinate a WEB SITE that will centralize monitoring protocols, guidelines, data, and information. Reviewers believe this is necessary and beneficial, as it will help the Action Agencies coordinate current and future projects, provide quality control of data, and provide a central location for sharing information. This site would provide potential sponsors with all the information needed to develop a valid effectiveness monitoring study.
What Elements are Lacking.
This proposal lacks specific information on what the developed products will look like. There is not a clear indication of what investment the authors have made in determining which monitoring needs exist and what percent could be feasibly executed.
Means and Opportunities to Strengthen Proposal.
This proposal would be strengthened by some more detailed information on what habitat improvement projects are currently out there to be monitored. The development of a centralized WEB SITE is an excellent idea. The proposal should describe in more detail how it intends to develop the site, how it will be managed, and how data quality will be controlled. A simplified outline or structure of the WEB SITE would be useful.
Specific Comments: The proposal needs to provide more information on how it intends to evaluate past and current projects. The proposal needs to define the criteria by which it intends to evaluate the projects. For example, a checklist of questions that will be asked of each project is needed. Reviewers think the following list of questions could be asked of each project:
- What hypothesis is the project testing?
- Where is the project located (province, subbasin, etc.)?
- What type of project was implemented (e.g., road closure, addition of LWD, etc.)?
- How many sites were sampled?
- Where were the sites located?
- What was the sampling design (sampling in test and control sites, sampling only in test sites, etc.)?
- How were sites selected (e.g., random selection)?
- What fish species were targeted?
- What factors were measured (include both physical/environmental and biological)?
- Where were these factors measured?
- How were these factors measured?
- How frequently were factors measured?
- How were the data analyzed?
- What are the key conclusions?
ISRP Remarks on RME Group Comments:
The RME comments are generally more positively disposed toward the proposal than the ISRP. It would seem that the RME comments on proposal 35033 also would be relevant to this proposal.
Comment:
Comment:
Do Not Fund; agree with CBFWA. The proposal is inadequate. The proposal is not clearly written, is not well-coordinated with action agencies and other proposed and ongoing monitoring programs within the basin, and it does not have enough methodological detail to provide a clear understanding of how the work will be done and what the products will be like. It isn't clear from the regional perspective why this project should be the one to do the activities described or that the activities described are even appropriate or possible.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitIndirect biological benefits. The proposed work may result in indirect biological benefit through the development of regional effectiveness monitoring programs.
Comments
There are a number of elements of this proposal that could be useful to the region in the context of an integrated effectiveness monitoring program; however, the proposal as written does not seem like it will deliver sufficient information to be a critical stand-alone component of an RME program.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Category:3. Other projects not recommended by staff
Comments: