FY 2000 proposal 199204101
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lower Columbia River Adult Study |
| Proposal ID | 199204101 |
| Organization | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Mike Langeslay, CENWP - EC - E |
| Mailing address | Portland, District Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208-2946 |
| Phone / email | 5038084774 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Assess the success of adult salmon, steelhead and lamprey passage through the Lower Columbia River hydropower system and into tributaries. Evaluate the effects on adult passage of specific flow and spill conditions and various adult passage improvements. |
| Target species | Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (O. mykiss) and Pacific lamprey (Lempetra tridentata) |
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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1995 |
Install equipment and prepare protocol for collecting and processing fish movement data. |
| 1995 |
Develop adult Pacific lamprey tagging method. |
| 1998 |
Monitor fish movement at dams and into tributaries. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Lower Columbia River Adult Study |
Co-Sponsor |
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 |
$80,000 of the $175,570 total |
$80,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| Other |
600 of the 2000 radio transmitter tags |
$120,000 |
| $200,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $200,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $200,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Corps of Engineers |
Dollars for 1400 tags (70%), personnel (54%), fringe benefits, supplies, travel, indirect costs, subcontractor costs. |
$1,300,904 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: This is a multi-year project that uses an adaptive approach. Our schedule may depend on how the region prioritizes 1999 LCARS report measures identified for further study, for example.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent upon full reporting of results from previous work and association of results to the Fish and Wildlife Program. (High priority)
Comments:
This project is a large scale study of up-stream movement of adults but one that BPA provides only limited support ($200K, 13% of total). The ISAB's recent report on Adult Passage (ISRP 99-2) clearly indicates that this research is essential and that this investment is justified. Given the substantial COE funding and the relatively modest request from BPA, it may be appropriate to continue funding the research even though the proposal itself would not be rated as "excellent".
This proposal clearly describes the proposed and on-going work. However, the need for this additional work is not clear due to limited reporting of the results of previous work. In particular, insufficient information is provided on the results of the major (apparently almost identical) project that was completed during 1995-1998. The objectives are clear, but the measureables are not adequately described. An example would be the number of radio-tagged fish required to address the problem and obtain statistically significant results, based on previous work that has been done. The assumptions required by the experimental approach are not clearly identified, such as the strengths and weaknesses of the radio-tagging method (e.g. tag loss rates, malfunction rates, limitations on accuracy due to location of receivers, other potential sources of tag loss between dams, the possibility that tagged fish are not actually representative of the behavior and/or survival of untagged fish, etc.).
There are numerous typos in the references and in the text; there is unsatisfactory explanation of methods used to estimate the percentage of tagged fish that pass dams (are all "losses" assumed to be mortalities?); and the proposal's vaguely "adaptive" structure (tag or not tag during a given year depending on flow conditions) make it impossible to judge the merits of the proposed budget. If it has not already been done, it is advisable to test and confirm that tagged fish behave and perform the same as untagged fish (e.g. by using side-by-side swim endurance tests of tagged and untagged fish).
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Fund under MOA Capital source due to shortfall in Direct Program available funds.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes - Cost-shared with BPA. Important work that has provided insights leading to overall passage improvements. Important from an adaptive management perspective.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Yes -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes - Timely submission of annual/final reports needed.
Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]