FY 1999 proposal 199700900
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 199700900 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Means of Rebuilding White Sturgeon Populations in Lower Snake R |
| Proposal ID | 199700900 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Paul Kucera |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437320 / paulk@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Lower Snake Mainstem |
| Short description | Evaluate the need for and identify potential measures to protect and restore the population and mitigate for effects of the hydropower system on the productivity of Snake River white sturgeon between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite dams… |
| Target species | white sturgeon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 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 | $130,000 | |
| Fringe | $35,100 | |
| Supplies | $25,000 | |
| Operating | $45,000 | |
| Travel | $25,750 | |
| Indirect | $109,150 | |
| Subcontractor | $30,000 | |
| $400,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $400,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $400,000 |
| 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: The first three objectives reflects a phase of the projected that the next phases is dependent upon. The Biological Risk Assessment (Objective 1) has been completed and identified data currently being collected (Objective 2). Completion of an Adaptive Management Plan (scheduled for completion in 2001 and implementation in 2001) is dependent on the collection of this data. Objective 1 (Assessment Phase): Milestone: 12/1996 -The identification of data concerning the Snake River sturgeon population that is need before potential mitigative actions designed to restore and protect the population can be fully assessed. Completion of Biological Risk Assessment (see Crimichael et al. 1997). 12/1997 - Completion of multi-year research plan designed to collect specific data concerning the status and health of the population, and identify and define habitat use by larval, young-of-the-year (YOY), juvenile, adult and spawning adult sturgeon as identified by the Risk Assessment (see Hoefs 1997). Objective 2 (Data Collection Phase): Milestone: 12/2001 -Final report assessing current status and health of the population and identifying habitat used and needs for spawning and rearing . Objective 3 (Reassessment Phase): Milestone: 12/2001 - Completion of an adaptive management plan designed to: a) reassess the risks associated with implementation of identified mitigative actions using data collected above, b) recommend need mitigative action(s) to achieve goal to restore sturgeon population, and c) monitor and evaluate effects of mitigative action(s) on population. Objective 4 (Implementation/ Monitoring and Evaluation Phase): Milestone: 01/2002 -Implementation of mitigative action(s) designed to restore population identified in the Adaptative Management Plan. Implementation of monitoring and evaluation program designed in Adaptive Management Plan.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Presentation: The goal of this project is to rebuild white sturgeon population in the Snake River between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon dams to support sustainable subsistence harvest by the Nez Perce Tribe. Although some previous work has been done, little is known about the current population structure. From a sample of 300 fish, it appears that the majority of the population are juveniles and there are few fish over 6 feet long. A Biological Risk Assessment was conducted in 1995 and identified resource objectives and potential mitigative actions. Lack of basic information prevented an analysis of the risks and effectiveness of potential actions.Questions/Answers:
How much consultation have you had with IDFG? Answer: This project was part of the lower river sturgeon project (8605000) and is now part of the Nez Perce Tribe Management Agreement. IPC (through a MOA) is also doing work in this area and sharing information and costs. There is no duplication.
Is there any cost share? Answer: This project shares equipment and staff with other NPT projects. Also, costs are shared through the agreement with IPC. These fish are hard to catch and occur in hard to reach areas.
How does this project relate to sturgeon projects in Hells Canyon and Oxbow reservoirs? Answer: The habitat in Hells Canyon and Oxbow is poor and there is no natural spawning. That population needs supplementation. Below Hells Canyon, the habitat is OK and there is natural recruitment. Supplementation is not needed.
The objective of a 5 kg/ha/ year harvest is not consistent with IDFG's objectives. Answer: The population has good recruitment. We would like to see fish over 6 feet.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes
Programmatic Criteria: Yes
General Comment: The parties need to cooperate better, coordinate efforts with project 9056.
Comment:
Comment:
This is a strong proposal in all parts. It provides good background, history, and rationale for work that addresses previously identified critical uncertainties. Data will be collected to define and test management objectives and outcomes.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $284,350 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website