FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22007
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 |
|---|---|
| 22007 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop Population Dynamic Model for White Sturgeon |
| Proposal ID | 22007 |
| 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 | Middle Snake / Mainstem Snake |
| Short description | This project will develop a population simulation model that can be utilized by manager to determine white sturgeon population status for planning purposes that could include responses to varying management alternations. |
| Target species | White Sturgeon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.1886 | -119.0296 | Snake River |
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: 12 mos fishery biologist | $54,642 |
| Fringe | @36.5% | $19,944 |
| Travel | $3,000 | |
| Indirect | @22.5% | $18,175 |
| Subcontractor | # of tags: Computer programmer | $3,000 |
| $98,761 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $98,761 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $98,761 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Department of Fish and Game | Office space, computers, computer programming assistance | $15,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal is not innovative. The project apparently builds on existing methodology to modify the inland fishery simulation model to accommodate white sturgeon life history. This proposal is to modify a population simulation model previously developed by the sponsor. It would employ data collected by Idaho Power Company biologists. The proposal does not meet the intent of the council's solicitation for innovative proposals. While the project itself has not been undertaken, similar efforts have been made and these are cited in the proposal. Therefore, while the proposal is for "new" work, it is not innovative because no new concepts or methods are proposed.Comment:
No new concepts or methods are proposed. Although intellectually stimulating, the proposed work will not likely improve conditions for white sturgeon. Not innovativeComment:
No new concepts or methods are proposed. Although intellectually stimulating, the proposed work will not likely improve conditions for white sturgeon. Not innovative