Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
|
| Section 1: General Administrative Information |
| Process Information: |
| Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized |
Status |
Form Generator |
| January 6, 2006 |
Finalized |
Brett Roper |
|
|
| Proposal Type: |
New |
| Proposal Number: |
200700100 |
| Proposal Name: |
Aquatic survey protocol comparison |
| Agency, Institution or Organization: |
US Forest Service - National Headquarters |
| Short Description: |
This project seeks to evaluate the accuracy, precision, and comparability of aquatic protocols used by different management and research organizations within the Pacific Northwest. |
| Information Transfer: |
This information will be disseminated though peer and agency publications. Presentations will be given to professional societies and the funding agencies. Data will be available to those who request it. |
| |
| Project Proposal Contacts |
| Contact |
Organization |
Address |
Phone/Email |
Roles |
Notes |
|
Form Submitter |
| Brett Roper |
USDA Forest Service |
860 North 1200 East
Logan, Utah 84321 |
Ph: (435) 755-3566
Fax: [left blank]
Email: broper@fs.fed.us |
Form Submitter |
|
|
All Assigned Contacts |
| Bruce Crawford |
Inter-Agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation |
1111 Washington Street SE
Olympia WA 98504-0917 |
Ph: 360.902.2956
Fax: 360.902.3026
Email: brucec@iac.wa.gov |
Interested Party
|
|
| Al Doelker |
Buearu of Land Managment |
[address left blank]
OR |
Ph: (503) 808-6067
Fax: [fax left blank]
Email: Al_Doelker@or.blm.gov |
Interested Party
|
|
| Scott Downie |
CA Department of Fish and Game |
1487 Sandy Prairie Drive, Suite A
Fortuna, CA 95540 |
Ph: 707 725 1070
Fax: [fax left blank]
Email: SDownie@dfg.ca.gov |
Interested Party
|
|
| Jim Geiselman |
|
|
Ph:
Fax:
Email: jrgeiselman@bpa.gov |
Interested Party
|
|
| Phil Kaufmann |
EPA |
Corvallis Research Lab, 200 SW 35th Streeet
Corvallis OR 97333 |
Ph: (541) 754-4451
Fax: [fax left blank]
Email: kaufmann.phil@epa.gov |
Interested Party
|
|
| Steve Lanigan |
U.S. Forest Service |
333 SW First Ave
Portland OR 97204 |
Ph: 503.808.2261
Fax: 503.808.2255
Email: slanigan@fs.fed.us |
Interested Party
|
|
| Jim McKean |
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service |
[address left blank]
Boise, ID |
Ph: (208) 373-4383
Fax: [fax left blank]
Email: jmckean@fs.fed.us |
Interested Party
|
|
| Allen Pleus |
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission |
[address left blank]
[city left blank] |
Ph: (360)528-4354
Fax: [fax left blank]
Email: apleus@nwifc.org |
Interested Party
|
|
| Brett Roper |
USDA Forest Service |
860 North 1200 East
Logan, Utah 84321 |
Ph: (435) 755-3566
Fax: [left blank]
Email: broper@fs.fed.us |
Project Lead
|
|
| Greg Sieglitz |
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board |
775 Summer St NE, Suite 360
Salem OR 97301-1290 |
Ph: 503.986.0194
Fax: 503.986.0199
Email: greg.sieglitz@state.or.us |
Interested Party
|
|
|
|
| Section 2: Project Location |
| Sponsor Province: |
Mainstem/Systemwide |
ARG Province: |
No Change |
| Sponsor Subbasin: |
Systemwide |
ARG Subbasin: |
No Change |
| Location(s) at which the action will be implemented |
| Latitude |
Longitude |
Waterbody |
Location Description |
County/State |
Subbasin |
Primary? |
| No Locations Entered |
|
|
| Section 3: Focal Species |
| Focal Species: |
| Primary |
Secondary |
Additional Species |
All Anadromous Fish
|
Resident Fish
|
|
|
|
| Section 4: Past Accomplishments |
| Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project |
This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments.
|
|
| Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects |
| Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source) |
| Funding Source |
Related ID |
Related Project Title |
Relationship |
| Other: PNAMP -- Aquatic Monitoring Protocols |
001 |
Aquatic Protocol Comparision -- John Day Bason |
The Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership has been interested in and conducted studies which evaluate the comparability and utility of aquatic monitoring protocols within the Pacific Northwest. The two main questions which they have focused on are; 1) which aquatic protocol(s) are the best for specific aquatic attributes and 2) can relationships (crosswalks) be established among different protocols. This interest promulgated earlier efforts to compare aquatic protocols. These studies have been funded by the states of Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Bonneville Power Administration, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This proposal is to insure that on-going efforts comparing various aquatic protocols within the region continue. |
|
|
| Section 6: Biological Objectives |
| Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project |
| Biological Objective |
Full Description |
Associated Subbasin Plan |
Strategy |
Page Nos |
| Habitat conditions |
Consistent, repeatable, and transferable aquatic surveys. |
None |
How repeatable are aquatic monitoring protocol? What are the relationships among the different common survey protocols? |
[Pg no blank] |
|
|
| Section 7: Work Elements |
| Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives |
| Work Element Name |
Work Element Title |
Description |
Start Date |
End Date |
Estimated Budget |
| Develop RM&E Methods and Designs |
Evaluating commonly used aquatic monitoring protocols in the Pacific Northwest |
To compare and contrast aquatic monitoring protocols used to evaluate habitat within the Columbia River Basin. |
12/1/2007 |
9/30/2010 |
$1,350,000 |
| Biological Objectives |
Metrics |
|
No Metrics for this Work Element |
|
|
|
| Section 8: Budget |
|
| Itemized Estimated Budget |
| Item |
Note |
FY 2007 Cost |
FY 2008 Cost |
FY 2009 Cost |
| Personnel |
This would have to be divided among the groups that participate. |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
| Overhead |
For a funded coordinator. |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
| Totals |
$450,000 |
$450,000 |
$450,000 |
|
|
| Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets |
| Total Itemized Budget | $1,350,000 |
| Total Work Element budget | $1,350,000 |
|
|
| Cost sharing |
| Funding Source or Organization |
Item or Service Provided |
FY 2007 Est Value ($) |
FY 2008 Est Value ($) |
FY 2009 Est Value ($) |
Cash or in-kind? |
Status |
| California |
Field Crews |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| EPA |
Statistical/Logistical Assistance |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Forest Service |
Compare Field to LiDAR |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Forest Service |
Field Crews |
$15,000 |
$15,000 |
$15,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Idaho |
Field Crews |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission |
Field Crew |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Oregon |
Field Crews |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Washington |
Field Crews |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
$10,000 |
In-Kind |
Under Development |
| Totals |
$85,000 |
$85,000 |
$85,000 |
|
|
|
| Section 9: Project Future |
| Project Future Costs and/or Termination |
| FY 2010 Est Budget |
FY 2011 Est Budget |
Comments |
| $ 0 |
$ 0 |
|
| Future Operations & Maintenance Costs |
|
| |
| Termination Date |
Comments |
|
|
| |
| Final Deliverables |
|
|
|
| Section 10: Narrative |
|
|
|
Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
|
| Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results |
Account Type:
Expense |
No changes were made to this proposal |
BPA's in lieu Funding Review of new project proposals (August 3, 2006)
[Download letter and table]
|
BPA's in lieu Rating: 1.0
Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 70% (84)
Status of Cost Share: Under Dev.
|
| Notes: General aquatic survey protocols; assume covered by MOU |
NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Type: | Expense |
| Budget Category: | Basinwide |
| Recommendation: | Do Not Fund
|
| Comments: |
NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006)
[Full NPCC Council Recs]
|
FY 2007 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0 |
| Budget Category: | Basinwide |
| Comments: |
|
Local or MSRT Comments: The MSRT adopted a principal that ISRP Not Fundable proposals were not going to be included in the budget balance exercise.
|
Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Not fundable
|
| NPCC Comments: The narrative portion for this proposal is missing so the proposal does not contain necessary justification. Note that the ISAB has reviewed this study design before; see ISAB 2005-1, www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2005-1.pdf. It's not clear whether the sponsors have addressed the ISAB comments. |
Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006)
[Download full document]
|
| Recommendation: Not fundable
|
| NPCC Comments: The narrative portion for this proposal is missing so the proposal does not contain necessary justification. Note that the ISAB has reviewed this study design before; see ISAB 2005-1, www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2005-1.pdf. It's not clear whether the sponsors have addressed the ISAB comments. |
Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.
