FY 2000 proposal 199902000
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 |
|---|---|
| 199902000 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon |
| Proposal ID | 199902000 |
| Organization | U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Russell F. Thurow |
| Mailing address | 316 E. Myrtle Boise, ID 83702 |
| Phone / email | 2083734377 / rthurow/rmrs_boise@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Emerging conservation theory suggests that recolonization and persistence of widely ranging species may be strongly influenced by the spatial geometry of remaining habitats. The relevance of these concepts to the persistence of declining stocks of chinook |
| Target species | Snake River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1995 | Drainage-wide redd count. Begin aerial mapping of spawning patches. |
| 1996 | Drainage-wide redd count. Aerial and ground mapping of spawning patches. Measures of patch characteristics. |
| 1997 | Drainage-wide redd count. Continue aerial and ground mapping of spawning patches. Continue measures of patch characteristics. |
| 1998 | Drainage-wide redd count. Continue aerial and ground mapping of spawning patches. Continue measures of patch characteristics. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8909800 | Idaho Supplementation Studies | Collaborative, information sharing |
| 9107300 | Idaho Natural Production Monitoring/Evaluations (ESA) | Collaborative, information sharing |
| Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation (Nez | Collaborative, information sharing |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Four temporary field Technicians, one week of Helicopter Manager’s salary, five months of permanent | $38,500 |
| Fringe | 20.55% | $7,910 |
| Supplies | Equipment for aerial and ground-based surveys. | $5,000 |
| Operating | Helicopter rental for aerial surveys, fixed-wing aircraft rental for access during ground-based surv | $31,000 |
| Travel | Crew perdiem | $5,600 |
| Indirect | 18% | $15,840 |
| $103,850 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $103,850 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $103,850 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| RMRS | 5 months of permanent biologist salary | $19,700 | unknown |
| RMRS | Office space, administrative assistance | $8,400 | unknown |
| RMRS | Computer hardware and software for data compilation, word processing, communication with cooperators, and analysis | $5,100 | unknown |
| RMRS | GPS units for ground and aerial surveys, GPS and GIS software | $18,650 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: If water conditions limit the accuracy of redd counts, additional years of research may be required.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. OK for a multi-year review cycle, look at in two years (medium priority)Comments: The proposal describes work intended to assess the spatial distribution of spawners via aerial counts. The proposal is a strong, well-written one with exceptionally qualified staff. The work is academically interesting, but is already quite well understood. We did not feel the proposal adequately described how results of this analysis might be used to increase the protection or enhancement of chinook populations. In general, we were supportive of the portion of this proposal that examines the accuracy of aerial redd counts. However, aerial redd counts have been ground-truthed for decades, but no summarization of those results was presented. Groundwater effects should probably also be considered.
There is no justification of why one month's time for each of the two cooperating scientists is needed or how it would be utilized, nor is there explanation of why FY2000 budget is doubled from that of FY99. Use of subcontractors is not adequately described.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Yes -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? No - Objectives 1 and 2 are not objectives
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -
Comment:
This project is needed, however, we recommend funding at a reduced rate to meet other management priorities in this region. Continue to pursue in house funding sources specifically for Objectives 2 and 3 for future years. Objectives stated in Project #20055 are important and could be included within this project in future years.Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]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: |
| $160,491 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website