FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22053

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
22053 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Analyze the historic productivity of Wallowa Lake and its implications for sockeye reintroduction and water quality management
Proposal ID	22053
Organization	Oregon State University (OSU)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. Jesse Ford
Mailing address	Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife, 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-3803
Phone / email	5417371960 / fordj@ucs.orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Dr. Jesse Ford
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short description	Analyze the recent (100 year) history of primary productivity at Wallowa Lake to inform potential sockeye restoration and kokanee management
Target species	Sockeye salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.331	-117.2225	Wallowa Lake

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: PI: 0.25/yr for 2 yrs; grad student: program +0.49 FTE for 2 yrs	$61,838
Fringe	PI:50%/51%; grad student 1%/5%	$16,984
Supplies	Lab, field, communications, computing costs, statistical consulting, Pb-210 analyses	$20,500
Travel	12 trips to Wallowa Lake; 2 trips to U. Alaska-Fairbanks (isotope analysis); domestic meeting	$21,500
Indirect	43% on all but tuition	$51,954
Capital	None	$0
PIT tags	0	$0
Subcontractor		$0
	Tuition for grad student, 2 years	$12,738
		$185,514

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$185,514
Total FY 2001 budget request	$185,514

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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Yes - C

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

This marginally innovative proposal is not likely to be of significant value for sockeye management in the basin. The proposal does not make a convincing case for the concept that ancient historical information on lake productivity, or lack thereof, can be useful in future management of sockeye salmon in the basin. The proposal is extremely site-specific. That lake stratigraphic analysis has not yet been used in the BPA system seems a weak claim for innovation. Questions and comments on the proposal: Is the introduction of mysid shrimp into the test lake, Wallowa Lake, a major problem in evaluating primary productivity or potential for recovery of sockeye salmon? Could a different lake, say Redfish Lake, be selected? Are two core samples sufficient to establish the spatial variation in the data? Are the results directly applicable to other lakes? If not, what would be required to evaluate carrying capacity, need for fertilization, etc. in another lake?