Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assesment Salmon River Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 9121 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Management Program (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ira Jones |
| Mailing address | P.O. BOX 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437406 / iraj@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | ASSESSMENT 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
| 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 |
|---|
| 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
| 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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.