FY 1999 proposal 9042

Additional documents

TitleType
9042 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleCritical Ecosystem Reclamation, Recovery and Recharge Project
Proposal ID9042
OrganizationShoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames M. Reed
Mailing addressP.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, ID 82302
Phone / email2082387721 / jreed@ida.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Upper Snake
Short descriptionUtilizing 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
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 $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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Is not consistent with wildlife program, does not meet threshold criterion A
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

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.
Recommendation:
Inadequate, adequate educational purpose
Date:
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.