Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Numerical Evaluation of Flow Modification on Salmonid Migration |
| Proposal ID | 9112 |
| Organization | The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (UMich) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dr. Sanjiv K. Sinha |
| Mailing address | 107 EWRE Bldg, Civil & Envir. Engrg.,University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2125 |
| Phone / email | 7346471747 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Mainstem |
| Short description | Improve conditions for Salmonid migration in Columbia/Snake rivers by modifying the flow field using a system of flow modification devices known as vanes. Flow-field, with and with-out the vanes, will be simulated using a 3-dimensional numerical model. |
| 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 |
|
$73,500 |
| Fringe |
|
$22,050 |
| Supplies |
|
$10,000 |
| Travel |
|
$3,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$62,959 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| Other |
|
$491 |
| $172,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $172,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $172,000 |
| 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: None.
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: Clearly define the objective of the study. Describe the anticipated changes in river flow with the vanes and tie this to the biological aspects of the fish migration. The impacts on other migrants and resident fish should also be considered.
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
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:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
Reviewers say the study should be related to other projects and exhibit coordination with existing literature and investigators. The ISRP suggests the proposal needs a more explicit discussion of evaluation methods and inference procedures.