FY 1999 proposal 199800200
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 |
|---|---|
| 199800200 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment |
| Proposal ID | 199800200 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Eric Leitzinger |
| Mailing address | 600 S. Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 |
| Phone / email | 2083344888 / eleitzin@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake, Boise, Payette, Weiser, Owyhee, Mid S |
| Short description | Investigate life histories, habitat needs, stock status, population trends, and threats to persistence/limiting factors of native salmonids in the Snake River and tributaries upstream of Hells Canyon Dam in Idaho. |
| Target species | bull trout (proposed ESA listing) redband trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout finespot cutthroat trout |
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 | $80,000 | |
| Fringe | $30,000 | |
| Supplies | $20,000 | |
| Operating | $15,000 | |
| Capital | $55,000 | |
| Travel | $15,000 | |
| Indirect | $35,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| $250,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $250,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $250,000 |
| 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: A potential constraint that may cause schedule changes is the listing of bull trout, redband trout, yellowstone cutthroat trout or any other native aquatic species in the study area on the endangered species list. The listing would probably result in increased coordination and NEPA work.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Return to Sponsor for Revision
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Management Issue: Explain how this work does not duplicate work done by the Interior Columbia Basin project; or the Idaho Power Company's Snake R complex relicensing (i.e., the C.J. Strike monitoring effort will perform similar work).Management Issue: Describe the how the work is coordinated with IDFG.
Fundable if funds available
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: This multi-phase project (similar to the Joint Stock Status Assessment 9700400) started in 1998 and the staff has not been hired yet. The goal is to assess the status of native salmonids (e.g., bull trout, redband trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout), identify limiting factors, fill in the data gaps, and ultimately implement projects based on the assessment. Since there is limited data, the assessment will start in the Payette system first. The project will be cost-shared with several other entities such as the Forest Service, timber companies, ranchers, BOR and IDFG. There may also be some ESA contributions. Idaho has $30,000 - $50,000 for bull trout this year. During the FY 99 review, the WTWG asked how this work does not duplicate the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project and IPC's work. This project doesn't duplicate the Interior Columbia Basin project because it collects more detailed data. It also doesn't duplicate IPC's work (e.g. C.J. Strike monitoring) because this project looks at the tributaries while IPC's work focuses on the mainstem. At this point, no FY 98 money has been spent. The budgets presented are estimates. If they are low, then IDFG will absorb the overruns, if they are high, there may be some carry forward.Questions/Answers:
What technique will you use for the genetics work? Answer: We don't want to lock into anything at this point. We will use the best technique to assess stocks (not necessarily mitochondrial DNA) and subcontract the work.
Have the stock assessments been done in the Owyhee by BLM? Answer: Yes, some work has been done; however, there is a need to coordinate and we have to pull the information together first.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes. This does not appear to be a BPA responsibility, cost should be borne by IPC and BOR.
Programmatic Criteria: No. Project needs better coordination and does not meet criteria 13, 14, 15, 16. This is expensive for a stock assessment and cost shares should be established
Comment:
Comment:
This proposal is for assessment of life history, population status and trends, and threats to native salmonids, directed to meeting the goal of protecting and restoring self-sustaining populations at harvestable levels. The proposal describes relations to other projects to avoid duplicating efforts and gives attention to avoiding negative effects of research on fish populations. The proposal is for work over a very large area, and may be overly optimistic regarding this, although the proposal does describe prioritizing streams to estimate population size. The panel noted that population structure should be measured as well. The proposal is well referenced.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: |
| $320,806 | $320,806 | $320,806 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website