FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33011
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 |
|---|---|
| 33011 Narrative | Narrative |
| 33011 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Implementing land use for resource and community sustainability at the county and regional level. |
| Proposal ID | 33011 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game, University of Idaho, Montana State University, Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Gregg Servheen |
| Mailing address | 600 South Walnut St. Boise, ID 83707 |
| Phone / email | 2083343180 / gservhee@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Tracey Trent |
| Review cycle | Upper Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake |
| Short description | Resource and community information will be assembled into a GIS decision support system to be used by county commissioners and planners in implementing land use. |
| Target species | bald eagle, wolf, sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, lynx, yellowstone cutthroat trout, grizzly bear, trumpeter swans, |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Fremont, Jefferson, Teton, and Madison counties in the Henry's Fork subbasin | ||
| 44.7502 | -111.3752 | Fremont |
| 44.03 | -112.6252 | Jefferson |
| 43.92 | -111.3752 | Teton |
| 43.92 | -111.8752 | Madison |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 152 |
| Action 153 |
| Action 154 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| NA |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Southern Idaho Mitigation | identification and proctection of important habitats | |
| Native salmonid assessment | use inventory data as part of the project's database | |
| Streamnet | use inventory data as part of project's database |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2: Develop a spatial database of community important areas, public access, historical and cultural areas, open space, and land ownership information that identify the community sense of place | Task 1: Hold preparatory meetings with ongoing efforts in the subbasin to coordinate. | ongoing | $3,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2: Develop a spatial database of community important areas, public access, historical and cultural areas, open space, and land ownership information that identify the community sense of place | 2004 | 2005 | $15,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $7,500 | $7,500 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1: Assemble a spatial database of biotic and abiotic resources at county and regional scales. . | Task 1: Identify and assemble existing fish and wildlife species information within cooperating counties. | 0.25 | $13,700 | |
| Task 2: Identify and assemble existing habitat and abiotic information within the counties. | 0.25 | $28,375 | ||
| Task 3: Adjust and rectify projections and scales and assemble into a GIS. | 0.25 | $28,375 | ||
| Task 4: Do a GAP analysis (Scott et al. 1993) and delineate potential reserves, linkage areas, areas of biodiversity, and sensitive areas. | 0.10 | $14,700 | ||
| Task 5. Prioritize and map database elements at local and regional scales | 0.15 | $15,500 | ||
| Objective 2: Develop a spatial database of community important areas, public access, historical and cultural areas, open space, and land ownership information that identify the community sense of place | Task 1: Hold preparatory meetings with ongoing efforts in the subbasin to coordinate. | ongoing | $30,600 | |
| Task 2: Hold public focus groups at the county level to gather county visioning, land use ideas, and identification of important areas. | 0.25 | $31,301 | ||
| Task 3: Develop a public survey of county residents to determine measures of important resources, land use, and community values. | 0.50 | $77,500 | ||
| Objective 5: Disseminate information about project and its applications. | Task 3: Prepare and deliver presentations to peers and public. | 0.1 | $0 | |
| Task 4: Consult, update, and finalize cost share and purchase agreements. | 0.1 | $0 | ||
| Task 5: Write proposals/work statements for future project years. | 0.1 | $0 | ||
| $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 2: Develop a spatial database of community important areas, public access, historical and cultural areas, open space, and land ownership information that identify the community sense of place. | 2004 | 2005 | $147,700 |
| Objective 3: Develop a spatially-based model providing scale, change, and risk-based predictions of prioritized resource and community elements in the cooperating counties. | 2004 | 2005 | $143,000 |
| Objective 4: Develop user interface of predictive model and provide hardware, software, and training to cooperating counties for implementation. | 2004 | 2005 | $95,000 |
| Objective 5: Disseminate information about project and its applications. | 2004 | 2005 | $12,000 |
| Objective 6: Develop a web based capability for public queries and interaction of county level information and decision support system | 2004 | 2005 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|
| $206,600 | $247,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 6: Develop a web based capability for public queries and interaction of county level information and decision support system | 2005 | 2005 | $10,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2005 |
|---|
| $10,000 |
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 | FTE: 3 graduate students, 2 part-time PI, 2 seasonals | $99,200 |
| Fringe | $35,658 | |
| Supplies | $33,800 | |
| Travel | $34,800 | |
| Indirect | $36,623 | |
| $240,081 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $240,081 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $240,081 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Fish and Game | administration, tech assistance | $15,000 | in-kind |
| Madison County | administration and assistance | $15,000 | in-kind |
| Fremont County | administration and assistance | $15,000 | in-kind |
| U of I Landscape Lab | data, expertise, hardware | $20,000 | in-kind |
| The Nature Conservancy | data, expertise, coordination | $10,000 | in-kind |
| Teton County | administration and assistance | $15,000 | in-kind |
| U of I Ecohydraulics Lab | computer support, hardware, and software | $20,000 | in-kind |
| Montana State University | administration, tech assistance, coordination | $5,000 | 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:
A response is needed. In regard to objective 3, an illustration of the type of mathematical formula that would be developed needs to be provided with illustration of predictor and response variables. Additionally the response should include a discussion of how the model would be verified or ground-truthed. How will this information be transferred to other watersheds? What is the tie to the Fish and Wildlife Program and the upcoming Council's subbasin planning effort?In theory this may be a good idea, but will this project be a positive fit with the local planning efforts? Letters of endorsement from local entities are requested, such as from the Henry's Fork Foundation and the Henrys Fork Watershed Council.
Why should BPA fund a project that seeks to affect local planning?
Comment:
The Henry's Fork watershed has a wealth of information while other watersheds have far less information to work with. The amount of work done within this watershed has clearly identified the limiting factor as over winter juvenile survival; however, the fishery continues to support heavy use so the limiting factors maybe a normal condition. Areas that are highly impacted and are poorly studied would likely result in greater benefits to fish, fisheries, ecology of the area, and the watershed.Comment:
Fundable. This project would develop a software package and computer-based system for land-use planning in Madison, Fremont, and Teton counties in southeastern Idaho. An inventory of aquatic, terrestrial, and physical resources would be developed and included in a GIS package. Results of social and community resource assessments, based on representative surveys, focus groups, and public forums would be included. Coding, rules, and sub-models of important database elements based on sensitivity to disturbance, relative rarity, land-use type, and risk would be developed.This effort is sound in a technical sense, although Council might wish to consider whether this activity is compatible with FWP goals and precedents. The ISRP initially was concerned about how such a project would be perceived (and received) by local officials. The response and the letters of support provided were strong and convincing. However, only Fremont County indicated support, but the work is planned for Teton and Madison counties as well.
Comment:
Do not recommend. This appears to be a responsibility of local government in meeting its planning and development needs. The connection to mitigation for the FCRPS is unclear.Comment: