FY 2000 proposal 20060
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Juvenile Anadromous Fish Prototype-Scale Evaluation Facility |
| Proposal ID | 20060 |
| Organization | Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ed Zapel |
| Mailing address | Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98188 |
| Phone / email | 2062416000 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Behavioral and physiological prototype-scale juvenile fish behavior and injury test facility capable of simulating surface and submerged outlet passage routes at prototype scale hydraulic head. |
| Target species | All juvenile migrant salmonids |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
NHC only. (Staff costs for NWPPC, COE, NMFS, ODFW, WDFW, IDFG, CRITC assumed carried within-agency) |
$19,000 |
| Fringe |
(Included in Personnel item above) |
$0 |
| Supplies |
Supplies and material costs are minimal for this phase. |
$3,000 |
| Capital |
(Capital improvements / lands acquisition support assumed carried by the Corps of Engineers') |
$0 |
| Travel |
Assume travel for two individuals to a total of four meetings in Portland, and two in Walla Walla. |
$2,200 |
| Indirect |
(Included in Personnel item above) |
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
INCA Engineers |
$86,000 |
| Subcontractor |
BioAnalysts |
$17,500 |
| $127,700 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $127,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $127,700 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| NMFS |
Staff support |
$0 |
unknown |
| COE-Portland |
Staff support |
$0 |
unknown |
| COE-Walla Walla |
Staff support |
$0 |
unknown |
| WDFW |
Staff support |
$0 |
unknown |
| ODFW |
Staff support |
$0 |
unknown |
| IDFG |
Staff support |
$0 |
unknown |
| CRITC |
Staff support |
$0 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Must complete scoping of regional research needs and coordinate facility design criteria within the first quarter of FY2000 (Oct - Dec 1999), in order to provide at least 200 days for preliminary and feasibility-level design work.
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. The proposal is inadequate and the potential costs are not programmatically justified before examining alternative proposals.
Comments:
This proposal is similar to Project 20054 in developing an experimental facility to examine the effect of turbulence on fish. Project 20060, however, is largely for regional consultation, facility design, and site selection. The proposed approach is attractive, but the proposal is not sufficiently convincing. It is very short, has few references, no resumes, and limited information on what might be accomplished by the proposed research. For example, there is no indication provided of how much support there may be for development of a regional test facility, which would clearly be required for this approach to succeed.
If parts of this project are supported, these reviewers suggest initially only the first part of the proposal should be funded (i.e. identify research needs and the potential broader interest/support for a regional test facility). If this initial stage is successful and regional agreement is reached, then provide support for the subsequent design and site selection.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Should be considered within System Configurations Team, appears to be a Corps capital issue. Regional needs/priorities need to be established and considered first.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? No - Regional needs/priorities need to be established and considered first. Proposal is premature.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];