FY 2001 Ongoing proposal 199700900

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

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluate Rebuilding the White Sturgeon Population in the Lower Snake Basin
Proposal ID	199700900
Organization	Nez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Michael A. Tuell
Mailing address	P. O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email	2088437320 / miket@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project	Silas Whitman
Review cycle	FY 2001 Ongoing
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Mainstem Snake
Short description	Evaluate the need for and identify potential measures to protect and restore white sturgeon between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite dams to obtain a sustainable annual harvest of white sturgeon.
Target species

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
1996	Upper Snake River White Sturgeon Biological Assessment
1997	NPT White Sturgeon Multi-Year Research Plan
1997	Annual report
1998	Annual Report
1999	Initiated white sturgeon telemetry study
1999	Initiated white sturgeon egg recovery study
2000	Hosted regional white sturgeon research coordination conference
2000	Initiated white sturgeon young-of-the-year sampling study

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 2001 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 2001 cost
1. Evaluate the need for and identify potential actions for protecting and restoring populations to mitigate for effects of hydropower on white sturgeon productivity.	a. Conduct a biological assessment. Completed (Carmichael et. al. 1997)	1996-1997	$0
2. Determine the status and characteristics ( reproductive and early life history of the Snake River white sturgeon population between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite Dams, including the major tributaries (Clearwater and Salmon rivers).	a. Estimate white sturgeon abundance throughout entire study area and determine if there has been any marked change in abundance or age structure of the population over the last 25 years.	1997-2001	$288,811
	b. Identify spawning behavior and movements of gravid females and mature males before, during, and after spawning. Identify spawning locations.	1999-2002	$14,294
	c. Verify spawning activities, timing, and locations.	1999-2002	$18,938
	d. Determine distribution/movements of fish, abundance of various age classes of white sturgeon per reach throughout the system and determine life history characteristics to be used in modeling population dynamics.	1999-2002	$33,142
3. Determine habitat used for spawning and rearing of white sturgeon in the Snake River between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon Dams, including major tributaries (Clearwater and Salmon Rivers).	a. Describe environmental conditions at locations where sub-adult and adult fish are captured in conjunction with tasks 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4.	1997-2002	$23,673
4. Coordination with fisheries co-managers and funding entities and dissemination of information.	a. Attendance of regional white sturgeon technical/management meetings.	1996-2017	$14,115
	b. Data compilation and report writing.	1996-2003	$80,488
5. Develop an adaptive management plan.	a. Fully assess the risks associated with mitigative actions using information collected.	2002-2003	$0
	b. Make recommendations for implementation of mitigative action(s).	2003	$0
	c. Develop an implementation, evaluation and monitoring plan.	2003	$0
6. Restore population to provide an annual sustainable harvest of 5 kg/ha/yr.	a. Implementation of mitigative action(s).	2004-2014	$0
	b. Evaluate and monitor effectiveness of action(s) by quantifying changes in population.	2014-2017	$0

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2002	FY 2003
$250,000	$500,000	$250,000	$250,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: 8	$243,752
Fringe		$55,929
Supplies		$33,446
Travel		$26,100
Indirect	@26.6%	$95,554
Capital		$0
NEPA		$0
Subcontractor	telemetry flights	$18,680
		$473,461

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$473,461
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$473,461
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$410,000
% change from forecast	15.5%

Reason for change in estimated budget

The indirect cost for FY2001 increased 3.2% increase. A more accurate calculation of fringe resulted in a 2.8 % increase. Salary increased by 9.4% because we upgraded the field crew to technicians.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 14, 2000

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 13, 2000

Comment:

Rationale: Budget increase inappropriate in this review.

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:
$284,350	$0	$0

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website