Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Mitigate Wildlife Losses on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation |
| Proposal ID | 9021 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (SPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Guy Dodson Sr. |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV 89832 |
| Phone / email | 2087593246 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Owyhee |
| Short description | Inventory 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
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.