Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Strobe Lights as a Juvenile Salmonid Guidance Behavioral Tool |
| Proposal ID | 9108 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Charles Morrill |
| Mailing address | 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091 |
| Phone / email | 3607533009 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Mainstem |
| Short description | Test strobe lights as tools to guide juvenile salmonids away from turbine intakes and induction slots and into the surface collector at Cowlitz Falls Dam. Hydroaccoustics, radio tagging, fyke and flume nets will be used to evaluate fish responses. |
| 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 |
|
$152,300 |
| Fringe |
|
$41,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$172,900 |
| Operating |
|
$11,000 |
| Capital |
|
$248,900 |
| Travel |
|
$16,800 |
| Indirect |
|
$123,100 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$421,700 |
| $1,187,700 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $1,187,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $1,187,700 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Host workshops/tours on site to demonstrate application of technology
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
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: While the objectives are clear the proposal needs to establish up-front measurable criteria against which success is measured. An absolute increase in FGE to a pre-determines level must be realized or the method will not be considered viable. Specific time lines should be established to achieve the FGE objective, or project does not continue.
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes: With the establishment of measurable criteria.
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
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
ISRP reviewers praised the proposal as well written and well documented, if quite expensive. Even if passing fish might not make it past lower dams, the reviewers suggest the study will yield important information and, if successful, could be a valuable model for implementation at mainstem dams. They also note that run-of-the-river fish may not be available for the study.