FY 1999 proposal 199800200

Additional documents

TitleType
199800200 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSnake River Native Salmonid Assessment
Proposal ID199800200
OrganizationIdaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameEric Leitzinger
Mailing address600 S. Walnut, P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83707
Phone / email2083344888 / eleitzin@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Upper Snake, Boise, Payette, Weiser, Owyhee, Mid S
Short descriptionInvestigate 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 speciesbull trout (proposed ESA listing) redband trout Yellowstone cutthroat trout finespot cutthroat trout
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 $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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
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.


Recommendation:
Fundable if funds available
Date:
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


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

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.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
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