FY 1999 proposal 9021

Additional documents

TitleType
9021 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleMitigate Wildlife Losses on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation
Proposal ID9021
OrganizationShoshone-Paiute Tribes (SPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGuy Dodson Sr.
Mailing addressP.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV 89832
Phone / email2087593246 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Owyhee
Short descriptionInventory of the wildlife resources on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. To partially mitigate and determine loss of native wildlife species due to our loss of anadromous fish. Inventory populations of species present and habitat available for them.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $40,000
Supplies $75,000
Operating $20,000
Capital $60,000
Travel $5,000
Indirect $53,200
Subcontractor $0
$253,200
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$253,200
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$253,200
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Constraints may be trouble finding a qualified wildlife specialist to work on the Reservation. Also, the lack of historical funding for wildlife may present a problem.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Is not consistent with wildlife program approach (threshold criterion E)
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Project 9021, Mitigate Wildlife Losses on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, did not meet threshold criteria E, “Is the proposed project consistent with, or does it complement the activities of the region's state and federal wildlife agencies and Indian tribe(s)?” The wildlife inventory tasks proposed are not consistent with the loss assessment approach pursued in the wildlife program. The hydropower-related wildlife losses of the Shoshone Paiute Tribe appear to be primarily operational and secondary impacts. At this time, the caucus has not developed a coordinated approach to assessing and addressing those impacts, (although these efforts are beginning in FY98 and continuing in FY99), and anticipates working with the Tribes to address these impacts.
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal is vague and poorly written, with confused objectives. It confuses losses with status; "Losses" implies a time trend, for which the proposal does not provided data. The budget should be examined by BPA. Although the project has laudable goals (e.g., a wildlife inventory), its relation to the Fish and Wildlife Program is unclear and the methods are inadequately described.