FY 2000 proposal 199902400

Additional documents

TitleType
199902400 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleBull Trout Population Assessment in the Columbia River Gorge, WA
Proposal ID199902400
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameBob Gibbons
Mailing address600 Capitol Way N Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone / email3609022329 / gibborgg@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Gorge / Wind
Short descriptionThis project will provide critical information to determine status of bull trout populations in the Wind, Little White Salmon, White Salmon, and Klikitat subbasins and to develop and implement required mgmt actions to restore & maintain healthy population
Target speciesBull trout
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $90,000
Fringe $28,800
Supplies $11,000
Operating $7,000
Capital $15,000
Travel $8,000
Indirect $30,960
Other $9,240
$200,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$200,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$200,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$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.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund. Proposal was technically inadequate and lacking in detail.

Comments: This proposal is wholly lacking in detail, and hence cannot be said to be based on sound science principles. There is no mention of the status of their management plan. The proponents do not describe who would perform the genetic analysis and how. In addition, the proposal is lacking in methodological details. CBFWA notes that bull trout are not known to exist in two of the four watersheds, and that the area is managed for anadromous, not resident fish. For each of the five objectives in section 8.f. there is no description of methods and, at best, a reference to another report. This does not provide the information needed to properly evaluate the proposal. In addition, sections 8.b., 8.c., 8.d. (which was completely blank), 8.g., 8.h., section 9, and section 10 contained inadequate detail for evaluation. How will snorkeling, foot surveys, and electrofishing be combined and used for statistical purposes? This proposal and 9802600, both ongoing, have broad overlap of subject matter but seem totally oblivious of one another. In contrast, project 9405400 is an example of how research efforts should be coordinated. Even if they have been on the ground for two months or waiting for initial funding, at a minimum they should have explained this, listed personnel, and described relation to and coordination with other bull trout studies. This proposal appears to be last year's proposal.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Screening Criteria: yes

Technical Criteria: no-The current info suggests bulltrout does not exist in two of the four watersheds. It doesn't meet criteria 2,6,7,9. This area is managed for Anadromous not Resident fish. The method section lacks detail.

Programmatic Criteria: no-It does not meet criteria 12,13,16. This is not urgent or a high priority for this budget. The inventory does not meet sustainable process. There is no demonstrated collaboration with Anadromous work.

Milestone Criteria: no- It's a short lived assessment project.

General Comments: This project should absorb 9802600 without an increase in budget.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 10-13-99 Council Meeting];
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:
$159,000 $159,000 $159,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website