FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 32004
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 |
|---|---|
| 32004 Narrative | Narrative |
| 32004 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 32004 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Effects of culverts on fish population persistence: tools for prioritizing fish passage restoration projects in the Middle Snake Province |
| Proposal ID | 32004 |
| Organization | USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jason Dunham |
| Mailing address | U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 316 East Myrtle Boise, ID 83702 |
| Phone / email | 2083734380 / jbdunham@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Bruce Rieman |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Boise |
| Short description | This project seeks to develop quantitative tools to evaluate risks that stream culverts pose to fish populations. Products from the research would be used in prioritizing fish passage restoration projects to provide maximum benefits to fish populations. |
| Target species | bull trout, rainbow or "redband" trout, mountain whitefish, nonnative trout (brook trout, brown trout, stocked rainbow and cutthroat trout) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Project area will include locations in the Boise, Payette, and Weiser subbasins | ||
| 44.19 | -116.18 | Payette subbasin |
| 43.66 | -115.81 | Boise subbasin |
| 44.58 | -116.57 | Weiser subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| RPA Action 152 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| NA | NA |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop quantitative models to predict effects of culverts on fish populations | A. Workshops and meetings to provide coordination and information sharing B. Assemble data or meta-data on existing information within study areas C. Finalize sampling design and protocols D. Plan and prepare for field operations, hire field support | 2004 | $23,600 |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Develop quantitative models to predict effects of culverts on fish populations | E. Conduct field data collection, enter and proof data | 2005 | $0 | |
| F. Data analysis, interpretation of results, preparation of publications | 2006 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Develop quantitative models to predict effects of culverts on fish populations | 2004 | 2006 | $286,740 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $121,540 | $121,540 | $43,660 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $0 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $16,000 | |
| Travel | $4,000 | |
| Indirect | $3,600 | |
| NEPA | $0 | |
| PIT tags | $0 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $0 | |
| $23,600 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $23,600 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $23,600 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| RMRS | Principal investigator (8 ppd) | $22,000 | cash |
| RMRS | Biologist salary (8ppd) | $18,600 | cash |
| RMRS | Computer hardware, software, maint. | $7,500 | in-kind |
| RMRS | Office space and administrative support | $13,400 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Response needed. Is there demand for this by managers in the Middle Snake Province? Need for this assumes that there is currently no effective protocol to prioritize culvert replacement. Is that correct in Idaho and Oregon? Would this proposed approach provide additional valuable information beyond the Washington (WDFW) approach with its elaborate protocol manual Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual (August 2000)? The response needs to show the actual model (the formula) and should illustrate examples of the model's potential use. The ISRP suggests that sponsors also consider incorporating an experimental design to enable testing this model against predictions resulting from best professional judgment.Comment:
Reviewers question whether it is a BPA responsibility to pay for the removal of culverts. CBFWA found that the proposed work is potentially interesting: however, CBFWA questions whether it is needed. CBFWA found that the methods are more of a discussion and that specific methods for fieldwork and modeling are lacking. In addition, CBFWA is uncertain if this approach would provide additional information beyond the WDFW protocol manual (i.e., Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual).Comment:
Fundable at low priority. The response was helpful in differentiating between the proposed approach and that of the WDFW culvert prioritization protocol. Three concerns remain. One is the possible lack of transferability to streams with anadromous fish. Two, there is some cost share ($61.5K from RMRS) but most of the study presumably will deal with Forest Service lands; however, no other funding is contributed by USFS and the proposal makes little reference to USFS and its needs. Third, outyear funding for FY04 and 05 is dominated by $122K/yr for construction and implementation, but no activities are detailed.Comment: