FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27015
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 |
|---|---|
| 27015 Narrative | Narrative |
| 27015 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop Long-Term Management Plan for Snake River (Hells Canyon Reach) White Sturgeon |
| Proposal ID | 27015 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Cochnauer |
| Mailing address | 1540 Warner Lewiston, ID 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087995010 / tcochnau@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Cal Groen |
| Review cycle | Blue Mountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Snake Hells Canyon |
| Short description | The project will cooperate with the Idaho Power Company and the Nez Perce Tribe to develop a long-term management plan for white sturgeon in the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. |
| Target species | White Sturgeon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.23 | -116.7 | Snake River, Hells Canyon Reach |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 9700900 | Evaluate Rebuilding the White Sturgeon Population in the Lower Snake Basin | Cooperatively develop long-term management plan with Nez Perce Tribe and in coordination with Idaho Power Company. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Compile existing white sturgeon data for incorporation into simulation model. | Task 1. Coordinate with agencies and tribes to obtain latest data collected from populations in Idaho's Snake River | 1 | $24,300 | |
| Task 2. Comparison of previous model simulations to most recent population data. | 1 | $16,200 | ||
| 2. With simulation model modifications and recent sturgeon population data, evaluate management alternatives to achieve stated goals for restoration and conservation. | Task 1. Modify inland fishery simulation model to accommodate white sturgeon life history characteristics. | 1 | $3,100 | Yes |
| Task 2. With modified model and latest population parameter, predict population response to different management schemes. | 1 | $48,600 | ||
| 3. | Task 3.1 Develop long-term management plan with information from Objectives 1 and 2. | 1.5 | $24,300 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 3. | 3 | 3 | $45,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $45,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Biologist-12 mos | $66,500 |
| Fringe | $24,200 | |
| Travel | Coordination of data, professonal society meetings | $3,000 |
| Indirect | $19,800 | |
| Subcontractor | computer programmer | $3,000 |
| $116,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $116,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $116,500 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| IDFG | Office space, computer facility, etc. | $15,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Sep 28, 2001
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Do Not Fund. A response is not warranted. The proposal, asking for support to apply a previously developed model and thereby assess management options for white sturgeon, is inadequate. Lacking is detailed description of the model, its validity, and availability of data needed for the model. It is not clear how the demographic data collected in NPT project 199700900 would be incorporated into the model. The ISRP briefing did not indicate the simulation model involved or the capabilities of the model to assess management options. The proposal seems to be for one IDFG person (a full FTE) to apply this model during a FREC re-licensing application for the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River; it is not evident why this would be a BPA/NPPC responsibility.Comment:
Because the reviewers are unfamiliar with the model and the fact that there were no responses to the ISRP, the reviewers question whether the model is valid/appropriate for the plan. This work needs to be coordinated with ODFW and the NPT.The RFC suggests the proposed work could complement management actions and should be performed jointly with Project 199700900 (potential cost savings).
Comment:
Do Not Fund. A response was not warranted. The proposal, asking for support to apply a previously developed model and thereby assess management options for white sturgeon, is inadequate. Lacking are detailed description of the model, its validity, and availability of data needed for the model. It is not clear how the demographic data collected in NPT project 199700900 would be incorporated into the model. The ISRP briefing did not indicate the simulation model involved or the capabilities of the model to assess management options. The proposal seems to be for one IDFG person (a full FTE) to apply this model during a FREC re-licensing application for the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River; it is not evident why this would be a BPA/NPPC responsibility.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUNA
Comments
Already ESA Req?
Biop?
Comment:
Do not recommend. BPA RPA RPM:
--
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
0
Comment: