FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22006
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 |
|---|---|
| 22006 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Use of Small (Nano) Radio Tags to Determine Subadult Bull Trout Population Status In Dworshak Reservoir, N.F. Clearwater River Drainage, ID |
| Proposal ID | 22006 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Tim Cochnauer |
| Mailing address | 1540 Warner Lewiston, ID 83501 |
| Phone / email | 2087995010 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Virgil Moore |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Evaluate distribution, habitat use, and movment patterns of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Dworshak Reservoir. |
| Target species | Bull Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.509 | -116.2875 | Dworshak Reservoir |
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 |
|---|
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 | 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 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: Fishery Biologist-12 mos; Seasonal-6 mos | $44,229 |
| Fringe | @36.5% | $10,429 |
| Supplies | Receiver, tags, boat fuel, vehicle rental, per diem, miscellaneous equipment, monitoring flights | $37,500 |
| Travel | Meetings | $1,200 |
| Indirect | @22.5% | $22,304 |
| Capital | $0 | |
| PIT tags | 100 | $240 |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | Capital purchase of radio tag receiver | $5,200 |
| $121,102 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $121,102 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $121,102 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Fish and Game | Supervision, field assistance with fish collection, monitoring below dam | $25,000 | in-kind |
| U.S. Forest Service | Seasonal employees to assist in field work | $20,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal does not meet the basic innovation criteria because these nano tags have been used in the basin and their use has become standard practice. There is no clear rationale for the work to benefit fish and wildlife and the study design is inadequate. Methods and procedures to accomplish Objectives 1 and 2 do not appear to be new for the study of bull trout in reservoirs. Also, based on the author's abstract, use of nano radio tags on bull trout in reservoirs would apparently not be unique to this project.Comment:
Nano tags have been used in the basin.Comment:
Nano tags have been used in the basin.