|
<br />i
<br />
<br />FY 99 Recommended Work Plan Summary (With BioI. Committee comments)
<br />
<br />07/08/98
<br />
<br />NUMBER I STATUS 1 SEC. 7 FY88
<br />TITLE COMMITTEE TOTAl. ANN. FUND CAP. FUND FUNDS FUNOS IN-KlNDfOl'HER TECHNICAL COMMlTIEE COMMENTS PO'S OFFICE COMMENTS
<br />111. Reduce Nonnative Fish and Sportfish Impacts $718,000 $446,000 $171,800 $0 $0 $100,200
<br /> >Utahwilf look into ttlls ancl provide revisions or .
<br />" 0 Green River Nonnative Fish mgmt. Be $70,000 $70,000 ~~:';f~~~t?any of this budget go to stomach
<br />87 Small Nonnative Cyprlnid Removal Be
<br />." 0 Cyprlnld removal- Utah Be $87,500 $87,500
<br /> PO recommends adding 15 & is-Mile reach and
<br /> dropping the reaches done in FY 98 (until we need
<br />87' OR Cyprinld removal. Colorado Be $54,000 $54,000 nonnative fish removal In the upper reaches).
<br />88 0 Yampa Channel Catfish Removal Be $90,800 $90,800 Change PI tolimModde. !~o~revl$ SOW.., ""UU\,Iw,u,noa...,,,uonal
<br /> fu.....
<br /> tha~~~~~~~hi:~!~~~a:~~glS
<br /> (both studies will remove all nonnative fishes
<br /> captured). The Committee questioned the need forthe This SOWwas approved forFY 98, but It was
<br /> diet worn in this study and Frank reported that $4.000 deferred one year so that ISMP nonnative
<br /> ~~~~~~~~~~~f~M~~r:~rstfull evaluation could be completed.
<br /> OR Be $50,000 $50,000 paragraPh)shOU[dbe=~~ane~natiOnOf
<br />.. Colorado R. Centrarehid Removal howsuccesswillbeevauated not with I Pl.
<br /> . This SOW shoulcl be revised based on peer review Recommend borrowing COOW boats or finding
<br />NEW NEW Yampa RiverNonnative Fish Control Be $93,700 $93,700 I ~~ts..BC would like~.see~~;::',m~~':rand some other way to cut the budget
<br /> perfonnance. This will be addressed by the I ~~~ this and the floodplain restoration
<br />CAP.1S OR Colorado River Pond Reclamation Be $272,000 $171,800 $100,200 Mani:roemenl Committee.
<br />CAP'" 0 HIghllnescreenlng Be '0 " All FY 98 funds.
<br />IV. Propagation & Genetics Management $1,118,700 $388,000 $406,700 '0 " $324,000
<br /> Update SOWIo reflect current status offlow-training
<br /> worn; provide status report to BC on this. BC would like PO recommends monitoring only the Professor
<br /> 10 see results of flow-training studies from first few Valley site (don't monitor the second site).
<br /> years of this study. BC restored funding to monitor
<br />25 OR Bonytalllntroduction Be $96,000 $96,000 both sites.
<br />" OR O&M Propagation Facilities Be
<br /> . additional $50K will be needed tOr O&M Of the new
<br /> BC added $25K needed for additional O&M costs al facilltyto hatch and raise Colorado squawflsh.
<br /> Recommend FWS investigate getting base funding
<br />", OR Grand Valley Be $189,000 $189,000 newfacilrtv: forthlsfacir .
<br /> Costs seem high in comparison to other facUities. FWS U.s. Fish and Wildlife SelVlce In.klnd contlibution.
<br />"" OR Ouray Be $308,000 $308,000 snouldc:onfirmthesecosts.
<br />29< OR Wahweap Be $83,000 $83,000 ~sOf~~i~~~i~~~randtransportbonytailjfwe're
<br />". OR Adult razorback collection Be $20,000 $20,000
<br /> In light ofoutyear costs, the BC asked if the MC
<br /> commltted to funding 50% of this study every year?
<br /> Utah needs to assess their desire to continue this WOfk
<br /> basedOl1flShavailabiJityandcost-sharing.lna PO recommends $16K cost-share from Utah again
<br /> Committee vote. 3 favored keeping this project In the
<br /> workpfan to provide basic infofmation about the InFY99.
<br /> specieslhat we still need; 4 keepi"!! it in Ihe plan
<br /> because ~ believe It's a low- prioIity in r~ht ofo!hel'
<br /> $16,000 $16,000 stud"es(themfo~~ldbe~to i~:~1
<br />" OR GJlahybrldlzatlon Be isn'tvitafloourreco efforts). contine list
<br />CAp.7 OR expansion ofFacllitJes Be
<br />
<br />Page 3
<br />
|