FY 2000 proposal 20055
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate a Mark-Resight Survey for Estimating Numbers of Redds |
| Proposal ID | 20055 |
| Organization | U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | William L. Thompson |
| Mailing address | 316 E. Myrtle Boise, ID 83702 |
| Phone / email | 2083734351 / bthompson/rmrs_boise@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | We propose a pilot study to evaluate the use of a mark-resight survey for obtaining estimates of numbers of Snake River chinook salmon redds. If successful, our method would provide a statistically rigorous means of monitoring salmonid populations. |
| Target species | Snake River Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9064 |
Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon |
Validation of methodology |
| 9107300 |
Idaho Natural Production Monitoring/Evaluations |
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 |
One month for two temporary Scientists to conduct redd counts; 3 months for permanent Scientist |
$27,360 |
| Fringe |
20.55% |
$5,623 |
| Supplies |
Misc. equipment |
$1,000 |
| Operating |
Vehicle costs |
$1,500 |
| Travel |
Per diem |
$1,000 |
| Indirect |
18% |
$6,567 |
| $43,050 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $43,050 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $43,050 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| RMRS |
2 months permanent biologist salary |
$9,880 |
unknown |
| RMRS |
Operations & Maintenance (helicopter surveys) - BPA Project 9064 |
$31,000 |
unknown |
| RMRS |
Office space, administrative assistance |
$8,400 |
unknown |
| RMRS |
Computer hardware and software for data compilation, word processing, communicaton 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 weather and water conditions are unsuitable for conducting redd counts during the scheduled time period, counts may have to be postponed until the following year.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund as a new proposal. Instead, do this within 9902000
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund as a new proposal. Instead, do this within 9902000.
Comments:
A strong proposal that provides a comparison between aerial and ground surveys of redds. This research is much needed and should result in improved technique. The budget seems high. Nevertheless, the proposal does not appear to be justified. Its main tasks are those already being done in 9902000. The work, which appears valid and needed, could easily be completed as part of that project, without additional funding. As a general topic, increasing the power of redd counts is important, but this proposal would not be a cost-effect approach.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? Yes - Well thought out and written
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
This is a valid task that would provide good information. It is not a priority within this region at this time. Because this project could refine and improve a current technique, it should be funded in future years. There is concern about adequate sample sizes in FY00 and FY01.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];