FY 2000 proposal 199800200
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 |
|---|---|
| 199800200 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment |
| Proposal ID | 199800200 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Kevin Meyer |
| Mailing address | 1414 E. Locust Lane Nampa, ID 83686 |
| Phone / email | 2084658404 / kmeyer@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Snake Upper |
| Short description | Investigate population status and trends, life histories, habitat needs, limiting factors, and threats to persistence of native salmonids in the Snake River and tributaries upstream of Hells Canyon Dam in Idaho, and implement recovery/protection plans. |
| Target species | Bull trout, redband trout, cutthroat trout, whitefish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Conducted basin-wide population surveys of bull trout and other aquatic species in the headwaters of the North Fork Payette and upper Weiser River drainages. |
| 1998 | Conducted bull trout spawning surveys in selected portions of the Boise River drainage in an effort to identify critical spawning habitat and establish a baseline for future trend monitoring. |
| 1998 | Coordinated with other ongoing projects and entities to avoid duplicating data collection and to assist in prioritizing field work. |
| 1998 | Began construction of Native Fish Database. |
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 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 full time biologist, one full time technician, and 4 seasonals | $116,595 |
| Fringe | $45,193 | |
| Supplies | vehicle rental, other misc. items | $19,538 |
| Operating | $7,553 | |
| Capital | $10,524 | |
| Travel | $13,402 | |
| Subcontractor | genetics analysis | $12,403 |
| $225,208 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $225,208 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $225,208 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: A potential constraint is the ESA listing of bull trout, redband trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, or any other native aquatic species in the study area on the endangered species list, which could delay field work or increase coordination and NEPA work.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. The ISRP recommends multiyear funding. ISRP criticisms can be addressed in the contracting process; particularly, assessment of current stock status using presence/absence and abundance should be augmented with population structure information.Comments: This is a well-presented proposal for assessing status, trends, life histories, and habitat associations of native salmonids in the Snake River. This information is called for by Council and past scientific reviews, and it is needed to design habitat recovery or protection plans to benefit fish. The proposal describes good basic research directed to restoration and protection of native fish over a large geographic area in southern Idaho. It also includes an attempt to evaluate the effect of brook trout removal in one stream. This sort of small-scale experimental work is needed if removal is to be considered for future implementation. The proposal specifies analyses and ultimate biological goals of the work and it emphasizes watershed function. Bull trout, redband trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and whitefish are target resident species. The PI has a history of publishing experimental work with salmonids. This well-written proposal will provide important information essential for protecting native salmonids in the Snake River and tributaries upstream of Hells Canyon Dam.
Reviewers offered several suggestions to improve the work. Assessment of current stock status using presence/absence and abundance should be augmented with population structure information. The proposal does not explain why mitochondrial DNA testing was selected for use in determining genetic composition of native salmonid populations. Are there other more effective or efficient alternatives? The goal of restoring populations to self-sustaining harvestable levels is vague. Populations can be sustained at many levels; what would be the target level and how will success be measured? Reference points for decline should also be specified. Additionally, the budget is not well-explained, although the amount seems reasonable for the work to be done. It is difficult to determine what is being done this year as compared to outyears. The objectives should more clearly specify targets to assess the success of their project. Objective 5 is a good example of how to incorporate biological measures to an objective. In the future, the project history should show more data, including interpretations of results to date. This project is sufficiently sound for multi-year funding with a review of results and progress to determine future funding after about 5 years.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical Criteria: yes- But there are misalignment between budget costs and remaining out year objectives.
Programmatic Criteria: yes
Milestone Criteria: no-This is a survey project.
General Comments: objective 5 appears to go beyond the intended scope of the project, which may require budget discussions.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $320,806 | $320,806 | $320,806 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website