FY 1999 proposal 199403400
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assessing Summer & Fall Chinook Salmon Restoration in Snake River Basin |
| Proposal ID | 199403400 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Billy D. Arnsberg |
| Mailing address | 3404 Hwy. 12 Orofino, ID 83544 |
| Phone / email | 2084767296 / billa@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Assess current summer & fall chinook spawning habitat & use, juvenile growth rates, emigration timing & travel to dams, juvenile & smolt-to-adult survival to evaluate recovery & restoration potential in Clearwater, Lwr. Grande Ronde, Imnaha Rivers. |
| Target species | Snake River summer chinook, Snake River fall chinook |
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$115,500 |
| Fringe |
|
$24,750 |
| Supplies |
|
$800 |
| Operating |
|
$8,600 |
| Tag |
|
$92,800 |
| Travel |
|
$6,700 |
| Indirect |
|
$45,650 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$10,000 |
| $304,800 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $304,800 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $304,800 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Availability of Lyons Ferry Hatchery subyearling fall chinook salmon to continue supplementation survival research for at least five consecutive years. If enough fall chinook adults return to Lyons Ferry Hatchery, we would have five complete years of subyearling fall chinook survival information under a range of environmental conditions by the year 2001
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:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is a well-written proposal that includes basic research on habitat and fish life history, as well as a comparison of hatchery and wild fish. Under objective 3, the proposal includes a broodstock management plan, but does not detail the criteria or data collection to develop the plan. Source stocks and the genetic and other risks are not described or assessed. The need for a broodstock plan or facility is not justified. The ISRP does not support the broodstock portion of the study. This is a four-year old project that have should reported some results.