FY 1999 proposal 9042
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 9042 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Critical Ecosystem Reclamation, Recovery and Recharge Project |
| Proposal ID | 9042 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | James M. Reed |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 82302 |
| Phone / email | 2082387721 / jreed@ida.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake |
| Short description | Utilizing the youth of the Tribe, improve ongoing environmental problems in the upper Mount Putnam drainage basin through active restoration of terrestrial and aquatic systems. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 | $54,500 | |
| Fringe | $15,550 | |
| Supplies | $20,000 | |
| Operating | $15,000 | |
| Capital | $118,000 | |
| Travel | $3,100 | |
| Indirect | $17,410 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $23,000 | |
| $266,560 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $266,560 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $266,560 |
| 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: None anticipated.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Is not consistent with wildlife program, does not meet threshold criterion AComment:
Project 9042, Critical Ecosystem Reclamation, Recovery and Recharge Project, is not consistent with threshold criteria A, "Is the project based on and supported by the best available scientific knowledge?" and 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)?" Many of the proposed actions are not supported under the wildlife program. The project sponsor is encouraged to coordinate with the Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Project, revise the proposal, and resubmit for funding in FY00.REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
Recommendation:
Inadequate, adequate educational purpose
Inadequate, adequate educational purpose
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
Teaching youth restoration activities is worthy, but more detail should be given on the restoration activities to be undertaken. In the current proposal, projects are not adequately described to judge their technical soundness or value. Some methods that are listed seem poor choices. For instance, use of rip-rap and incubation techniques should be viewed with caution and could be harmful. The proposal should ensure that biologists will be involved in the scientific aspects of the project.