FY 1999 proposal 9090

Additional documents

TitleType
9090 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRecondition Wild Steelhead Kelts For Repeat Spawning
Proposal ID9090
OrganizationColumbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameAllen F. Evans
Mailing address729 NE Oregon St., Suite 200 Portland, OR 97232
Phone / email5037311317 / evans@transport.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Lower Snake Mainstem
Short descriptionIndentify the proportion of steelhead kelts outmigrating through juvenile bypass systems in the Snake River. Once identified, reconditioning kelts to augment wild Snake River steelhead populations.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
0 (none)

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $16,500
Fringe @ 31.5% $5,198
Supplies Ultrasound machine ($17,500)- no indirect cost associated. We will attemp to lease, to reduce cost $18,375
Operating $3,125
Travel per diem, lodging $2,720
Indirect @ 37.8% $10,742
Subcontractor NA $0
$56,660
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$56,660
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$56,660
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: No major foreseeable constraints


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:

Comments:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Incomplete Given the wide range of kelt abundance est. among projects the study should explain how accurate the estimates of abundance are based on observations at only one project. Perhaps addition of other sites, where other factors come into play are necessary

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete: The proposal needs to state a criteria for the estimated number of kelts that would justify the continuation of the study.

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Incomplete Possibly, but the study makes no contingency in terms of costs (dollars and time) if a morphological assessment cannot be adequately developed.

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete The proposal only refers to two persons, one half time and the other 10% time. I trust this is sufficient personnel.


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Potential ESA need
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is for a different technological approach to increasing fish populations, "reconditioning" of potential repeat spawners. The proposal has a number of significant flaws. It does not adequately describe reconditioning and needs more scientific information on repeat spawners. A study of the occurrence and importance of repeat spawners would provide important data. The reconditioning portion of the proposal should be viewed with caution, as it could be harmful to steelhead populations, particularly if repeat spawners are important to reproduction.