FY 1999 proposal 9152

Additional documents

TitleType
9152 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleFeasibility of Sockeye Reintroduction to Wallowa and Warm Lakes
Proposal ID9152
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBilly D. Arnsberg
Mailing address3404 Hwy. 12 Orofino, ID 83544
Phone / email2084767296 / billa@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionDetermine the feasibility of reintroducing Snake River sockeye salmon into Warm Lake, Idaho and Wallowa Lake, Oregon.
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

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 $103,000
Fringe $24,700
Supplies $10,000
Operating $7,500
Capital $32,500
Travel $16,000
Indirect $56,600
Subcontractor $10,000
$260,300
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$260,300
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$260,300
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: The availability of Snake River sockeye salmon eggs and/or fry will not be limited to the Stanley Basin lakes in the future. The genetic structure of Redfish Lake sockeye salmon will not restrain reintroduction success to Wallowa and Warm Lakes. The migration corridor will be sufficient to pass sockeye salmon adults and juveniles to and from the ocean.


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: This proposal needs to be rewritten. Most of the proposal is focused on review of existing information and not enough detail is presented on what is proposed to judge whether it meets criteria.

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Incomplete

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.

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:

This proposal is for a good purpose, but the work as proposed is not supportable. The project endorses an ecosystem approach to the problem, which is a positive, but a clear conceptual framework is not posed. The work relies on models, which are not described, and no personnel are shown as having the needed modeling expertise. It is not clear how this could support successful salmon reintroduction. The proposal should have a defined window for success, beyond which efforts should not be extended.