FY 1999 proposal 9121

Additional documents

TitleType
9121 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAssesment Salmon River Subbasin
Proposal ID9121
OrganizationNez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameIra Jones
Mailing addressP.O. BOX 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437406 / iraj@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionASSESSMENT OF THE SALMON RIVER SUBBASIN FOR PROBLEMS NEEDING PROTECTION OR RESTORATION THAT ARE NOT ALLOWING FOR FULFILLMENT OF ANADROMOUS FISH POPULATIONS TO BE MET, WORKING WITHIN AN OVERALL WATERSHED APPROACH.
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
9607700 Johnson Creek Watershed Project Protection and restoration of the Salmon River fish habitat
8909802 Salmon Supplemental Studies in ID Rv. Nez Perce Tribe Protection and restoration of the Salmon River fish habitat
9604300 Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement - O& M Protection and restoration of the Salmon River fish habitat

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 $12,925
Fringe $2,262
Supplies $600
Travel $3,240
Indirect $5,556
Subcontractor Payette National Forest; Boise National Forest; Earth Conservation Corp.- Salmon Corp.-Nez Perce $0
Other $2,500
Other $2,500
Other $2,500
$32,083
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$32,083
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$32,083
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: There will not be any schedule constraints.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision*
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Clearly describe the objectives and expected results of the project. What are the outcomes from attending meetings? What are the fish and wildlife benefits?

Technical Issue: Explain how this work does not duplicate ongoing work.

Technical Issue: Explain how this methodology will provide a useful watershed assessment and strategic plan for conducting restoration activities.

Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Pending
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal has a valuable general goal and addresses a large area of important fish habitat. However, the proposal is vague and too little detail is given to justify the work. The proposal appears to be for an assessment of existing information; no on-ground assessment activities are planned. The objectives section is vague and criteria for assessment or decision-making are not detailed. Methods and monitoring plans are vague or absent. The proposal should describe other assessment efforts and its relation to them.