FY 1999 proposal 199501300

Additional documents

TitleType
199501300 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleNez Perce Trout Ponds
Proposal ID199501300
OrganizationNez Perce Tribe (NPT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJames L Mauney
Mailing addressP.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540
Phone / email2088437320 / jamesm@nezperce.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Clearwater
Short descriptionRepair 2 existing trout ponds, conduct site inventory, design, construction, management of up to 12 more fish ponds to provide consumptive resident fisheries to compensate for losses caused by Dworshak Dam.
Target speciestrout
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 $156,467
Fringe $30,167
Supplies $14,000
Operating $2,400
Capital $100,000
Travel $4,000
Indirect $65,894
Subcontractor $360,000
Other $16,335
$749,263
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$749,263
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$749,263
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: Detail of NEPA documentation, annual budget constraints, land negotiations, weather


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable if funds available
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: This is a resident fish substitution project to compensate for the loss of anadromous fish caused by Dworshak Dam. The goal of the project is to develop trout ponds to substantively increase harvest. The tribe currently has 2 ponds and would like to construct 2 more (and is waiting for the geotechnical reports). A number of activities will occur this year including; deepening existing ponds; working with Corps on the design of the dams for the new ponds; writing legal descriptions; repairing a damaged spillway; constructing two silt retention ponds to catch drain; conducting creel censuses; conducting a feasibility study; monitoring the channel; surveying boundaries; and working with the watershed group.

Questions/Answers:

Currently there are 2 small trout ponds. What do the 7 people do? Answer: The land is owned by tribal members. There are 4 full time people and 3 part-time people in administration. Two or three people survey, write legal descriptions, collect data from 3 transects on each site, and monitor the channel.

Are the ponds open to the public? Answer: The two new ones will be, the two existing ponds are heavily used by tribal members.

What are the subcontractors used for? Answer: The budget includes $360,000 for pond construction.

How are the existing ponds used? Answer: The existing ponds (totaling 11.2 acres) are used quite a bit. They are stocked with rainbow trout and used for ice fishing, camping and swimming.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical: Criteria: No. The project does not meet criteria 4 (the resources proposed are excessive to achieve objectives).

Programmatic: No. Project does not meet criteria 12, 13, 14, and 17.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal for a put-and-take sports fishery is poorly written. Reviewers comment that the proposed work is not in the best interest of native species in the Columbia River Basin. The project deals with one of the most manageable of fishery situations (trout in ponds), yet there is evidence of mistakes in the past. The proposal does not demonstrate that the project managers implemented elementary principles of pond construction and management, which possibly would have avoided the mistakes. The proposal indicates that steps will be taken toward correcting past mistakes, but some major types of improvement in construction do not seem to have been considered (e.g., most advantageous pond location with respect to water supply, and ability to drain). Increasing depth of the existing ponds is essential, but the plan does not indicate that enough depth will be added to prevent winterkill or increase trout growth. Trout growth in these ponds has been poor compared with other ponds in the region which are better built. The water sources for the ponds are inadequately described. The plan does not show that creating off-stream-channel ponds was considered; this would be far preferable and could probably greatly reduce or eliminate the ponds’ apparent severe problems with siltation and nutrients. The proposal also indicates weak measures to reduce the bullhead population. Stronger measures should have been described such as for the ponds to be drained and the bullheads completely eradicated. The reference list is inadequate. It should contain basic books and articles on pond management for fish.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$183,561 $183,561 $183,561

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website