FY 1999 proposal 9041

Additional documents

TitleType
9041 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEnhance/Protect Imperiled Native Fish Species Through Improved Education...
Proposal ID9041
OrganizationMontana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameHeather M. Pier
Mailing address490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone / email4067514563 / kbrooks@mt.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Columbia / Kootenai, Flathead
Short descriptionProvide educational and informational services to the public on issues relating to enhancement of bull trout, cutthroat trout, sturgeon, red band rainbow and other imperiled fisheries, and their corresponding habitats
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 $24,998
Fringe $7,931
Supplies $12,097
Operating $10,800
Travel $4,027
Indirect $10,685
Subcontractor $3,000
$73,538
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$73,538
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$73,538
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: None.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: Previous studies showed that 50% of the people had difficulty correctly identifying fish. As a result, the public may be inadvertently taking fish the regulations are designed to protect. This project funds one person to go to schools to teach fishing ethics and species identification. There is also an ongoing cooperative effort under which MDFWP has distributed pamphlets and installed display boxes (showing lake, bull, rainbow, and cutthroat trout models) to help the public identify fish.

Questions/Answers:

What Council Program measure does this project address? Answer: The link is weak, the project doesn't address a specific measure.

How does harvest compliance relate to hydropower losses and Bonneville's responsibilities? Answer: Harvest compliance is based on knowledge. The fish are in weak condition because of the hydro impacts. We don't have any outreach currently and we have a catch-and-release policy. All of us have to foster public awareness and assistance within what we are doing.

Could this be done under your watershed projects? Answer: We could put it there.

Comment: Similar states are not requesting funding for this in the same way. Isn't this a state responsibility?

Did you see any significant decline in illegal bull trout harvest resulting from your ongoing outreach programs? Answer: The enforcement project used to fund sting operations of poaching. There were about 29.7 illegal harvests (extrapolated from busts) in the tributaries per week.

Did the inadvertent mistakes decline with education? Answer: I don't know. Probably not.

Screening Criteria: No. Project does not address a specific Council measure.

Technical Criteria: Yes. There is no evidence this activity actually reduced incidental catch of bull trout.

Programmatic Criteria: No. There is no clear hydro connection considering other activities in area.

General Comment: This does not appear to be a ratepayer obligation. Funding should come from a different source.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This was a hard proposal to review because it is educational in focus, but the educational purpose to help anglers identify different species is valuable. The proposal gives little information on monitoring for results and evaluating the program. Relationships to other projects are vague (no specific projects). The objectives list is good, including monitoring achievement. The project seems worthwhile, but review is not truly a scientific call. The project should have more direct ties to other BPA projects. Is BPA an appropriate funding source for this? Where is the Council’s policy line between mitigation and education?