FY07-09 proposal 200710600
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Spokane Tribe Fish and Wildlife Planning and Coordination |
| Proposal ID | 200710600 |
| Organization | Spokane Tribe |
| Short description | To ensure adequate Spokane Tribal representation at regional meetings. This project would secure funding for Spokane Tribal Fish and Wildlife Managers to attend regional and provincial meeting to assist in development of work plans within Columbia River |
| Information transfer | |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| B.J. Kieffer | Spokane Tribe of Indians | bjk@spokanetribe.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| B.J. Kieffer | Spokane Tribe of Indians | bjk@spokanetribe.com |
| Deanne Pavlik-Kunkel | Spokane Tribe of Indians | deannep@spokanetribe.com |
| Tim Peone | Spokane Tribe of Indians | tpeone@starband.net |
| Kelly Singer | Spokane Tribe of Indians | kellys@spokanetribe.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Wildlifesecondary: All Resident Fish
Additional:
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | [no entry] | Projects in NWPCC Fish and Wildlife Program | |
| BPA | 199800300 | Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitiga | Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation Project (Operation and Maintenance) |
| BPA | 199106200 | Blue Cr Winter Range | Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation Project (Land Acquisistion) |
| BPA | 199104600 | Spokane Tribal (Galbr Sprgs) H | Spokane Tribal Hatchery (Substitution) |
| BPA | 199502700 | Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon | Spokane Tribe Fisheries Project |
| BPA | 199404300 | Lake Roosevelt Data Collection | Spokane Tribe Fisheries Project. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regional Coordination | Coordinate activities of the Spokane Tribe with other Fish and Wildlife managers, CBFWA, BPA, and the NPCC consistent with the Intermountain Province Subbasin Plans, 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program and the Northwest Powe Act. | None | [Strategy left blank] |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | Participation in Regional Fish and Wildlife Activities | Participate in regional mitigation activities to implement Fish and Wildlife Program. This will include coordinating HEP team schedule, work assignments, policy annalysis, ect... | 2/1/2007 | 1/31/2010 | $124,300 |
|
Biological objectives Regional Coordination |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Informtion sharing with regional entities on Spokane Tribal Policies and Programs. | Provide for discussion and information sharing with regional fish and wildlife managers, BPA, NPCC on Spokane Tribal policies, Program, and projects. | 2/1/2007 | 1/31/2010 | $90,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of general public reached: 8 NPCC Council Members and Staff * # of general public reached: BPA Staff * # of general public reached: 18 fish and wildlife management agencies and tribe |
||||
| Produce Plan | Assist regional fish and wildlife managers with completion of regional reporting | Assist CBFWA with annual work plan and program wide implementation reporting | 2/1/2007 | 1/31/2010 | $15,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Assist in regional fish and wildlife technical reviews of projects | Assist in providing a regional review of projects for funding consideration (Provincial Reviews), funding adjustments, and reallocation of Fish and Wildlife Program funding. | 2/1/2007 | 3/31/2010 | $50,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | .7 FTE | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 |
| Fringe Benefits | 18% of wages, plus medical expenses | $12,600 | $12,600 | $12,600 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $6,315 | $6,315 | $6,315 |
| Travel | Coordination expenses to attend regional meetings, airfare, mileage, car rentals | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
| Overhead | Tribal Indirect Cost | $14,185 | $14,185 | $14,185 |
| Totals | $93,100 | $93,100 | $93,100 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $279,300 |
| Total work element budget: | $279,300 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $95,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $95,000 |
Comments: These coordination funds are needed in order for the Spokane Tribe's fish and wildlife managers to assist in continuing to assist in the coordination activities within the Columbia River Basin. |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 2084
Comments: The Spokane Tribe will continue to seek coordination funds until: 1) Become members of CBFWA, and/or 2) Full Mitigation is met.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $65,000 | $65,000 | $65,000 | $0 | Expense | Basinwide | Under Review |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $93,100 | $93,100 | $93,100 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Admin (see comments)
NPCC comments: This is an inadequately written proposal to perform coordination and meeting participation. The proposal provides little explanation of how the requested FTE support and other funds will be spent. Budget figures are rounded and seem excessive (e.g. .7 FTE for coordination; $10,000 to attend regional meetings). The proposal does not justify why the efforts described in this proposal, which would seem to be routine and to require minimal effort, are not a component of the four ongoing Spokane projects, or how conservation and management will be affected if the funding is not provided. This proposal and a twin proposal submitted by the Kalispel Tribe would seem to be covered under the more comprehensive (and less expensive) UCUT coordination proposal, which includes the Spokane and Kalispel. The justification for the proposal is based in the need for regional cooperation, the MOU between BPA and the Upper Columbia United Tribes regarding consultation, coordination and participation, and the withdrawal of the Spokane Tribe from CBFWA. The proposal does not provide specific explanation of the Tribe’s withdrawal from CBFWA. The proposal has a single objective of regional coordination, explained as being necessary for Spokane implementation of the Fish and Wildlife Program. Four work elements are generally explained as participation in meetings, exchanging information, providing Spokane information to regional reporting, and providing information to regional entities on Spokane policies, programs, and projects. Coordination is not specifically tied to improvements of fish and wildlife conservation and restoration on Spokane lands.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Admin (see comments)
NPCC comments: This is an inadequately written proposal to perform coordination and meeting participation. The proposal provides little explanation of how the requested FTE support and other funds will be spent. Budget figures are rounded and seem excessive (e.g. .7 FTE for coordination; $10,000 to attend regional meetings). The proposal does not justify why the efforts described in this proposal, which would seem to be routine and to require minimal effort, are not a component of the four ongoing Spokane projects, or how conservation and management will be affected if the funding is not provided. This proposal and a twin proposal submitted by the Kalispel Tribe would seem to be covered under the more comprehensive (and less expensive) UCUT coordination proposal, which includes the Spokane and Kalispel. The justification for the proposal is based in the need for regional cooperation, the MOU between BPA and the Upper Columbia United Tribes regarding consultation, coordination and participation, and the withdrawal of the Spokane Tribe from CBFWA. The proposal does not provide specific explanation of the Tribe’s withdrawal from CBFWA. The proposal has a single objective of regional coordination, explained as being necessary for Spokane implementation of the Fish and Wildlife Program. Four work elements are generally explained as participation in meetings, exchanging information, providing Spokane information to regional reporting, and providing information to regional entities on Spokane policies, programs, and projects. Coordination is not specifically tied to improvements of fish and wildlife conservation and restoration on Spokane lands.