FY 2000 proposal 20100
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Characterize Historic Channel Morphology of the Columbia River: McNary Pool |
| Proposal ID | 20100 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Tim P. Hanrahan |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 999, MS K6-85 Richland, WA 99352 |
| Phone / email | 5093760972 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Columbia Lower Middle |
| Short description | Characterize pre-dam channel morphology of the Columbia River between the mouths of the Yakima and Walla Walla rivers, focusing on the physical features controlling the development of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat. |
| Target species | fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) |
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 |
|
$61,245 |
| Fringe |
|
$11,072 |
| Supplies |
|
$6,103 |
| Travel |
|
$7,721 |
| Indirect |
|
$21,762 |
| Subcontractor |
Central Washington University |
$11,848 |
| $119,751 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $119,751 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $119,751 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. Programmatic value, benefits to fish are not explained.
Comments:
The relationship of this project to the Fish and Wildlife Program is not clear; however, if drawdown of McNary Dam is ever considered, it would have application. While the idea is interesting, the application of the results is uncertain. There is no mention of potential benefits to fish. Linkages with other projects are not discussed. The proposal could have referenced documentation of spawning areas used by chinook salmon prior to inundation by McNary Dam, but even then, identification of "alluvial reaches" does not in itself establish that they were ever used by salmon, nor that they would be if they were again available. "Assumptions" are made that certain data sources exist. Investigators might readily have ascertained their availability, considering that Council staff is well informed on the subject, as are some others in the region. The adequacy of the model as proposed to be developed should be clarified, including identification of potential weaknesses and uncertainties that may or may not be addressed by this project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
How does this project compliment other work done by PNNL. Would this project be more appropriately funded under the COE draw down feasibility review?
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Clearly describe measurable biological benefits and milestones.Is this activity more within the scope of the Corps' responsibility?
The project's success depends on numerous assumptions (i.e. data availability)
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];