FY 1999 proposal 199005500

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

TitleType
199005500 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSteelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers
Proposal ID199005500
OrganizationIdaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameAlan Byrne
Mailing addressIDFG - Fisheries Research P.O. Box 25 Boise, ID 83709
Phone / email2084658404 / abyrne@idfg.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Salmon, Clearwater
Short descriptionEvaluate the feasibility of using artificial production to increase natural steelhead populations and to collect life history, genetic, and disease data from wild steelhead populations in Idaho.
Target species
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 $100,000
Fringe $35,000
Supplies $8,000
Operating $20,000
Capital $15,000
Tag $23,200
Travel $10,000
Subcontractor $10,000
Other $37,000
$258,200
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$258,200
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$258,200
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes

Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes

Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes

Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal has three objectives. The first objective is to compare wild and hatchery returns, but returns have not been high enough to implement this objective. This should be done only with considerable caution, due to the extremely small numbers of fish remaining. The second objective is to evaluate whether returning hatchery adults spawn naturally. The third objective is to gather baseline background data. The baseline study ought to be done. The experimental design should be described in greater detail, but is adequate to establish that such important factors as replication, control, and power have been taken into account. The paired watershed design is a good approach and the power analysis establishes that an ecologically meaningful project can be conducted with the sample size possible.
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:
$589,086 $589,086 $589,086

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website