FY 1999 proposal 199501500
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 |
|---|---|
| 199501500 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Billy Shaw Wetlands catch and release fishery O&M |
| Proposal ID | 199501500 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (SBT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Guy Dodson Sr. |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV 89832 |
| Phone / email | 2087593246 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Owyhee |
| Short description | Enhance & develop Billy Shaw tributaries, restore to once pristine condition; partial wages for temp. employee to keep lake & campgrounds clean, pollution-free. |
| Target species | rainbow trout wildlife |
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 | $70,000 | |
| Supplies | $75,000 | |
| Operating | $38,500 | |
| Indirect | $66,500 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| $250,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $250,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $250,000 |
| 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: Only constraints will be problems in finding part time worker. Likely will not be a major problem.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable if funds available
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: Reservoir construction should begin this begin this spring. FY 99 money is for operation and maintenance plus habitat work (fences, fish screens, monitoring water quality before fish come in, public education, catch-and-release). Fish for the reservoir are expected to come from the Joint Culture Facility (9500600) but if that doesn't work, then there is money in the FY 99 budget for fish from another source. At this point we are not sure which species will be stocked in the reservoir. The project also includes some tributary habitat work to generate natural production to support a self-sustaining system. We may not spend all of the $250,000 this year.Questions/Answers:
There was a large amount of carry forward from previous years, what will it cover? Answer: Those funds cover the construction of the reservoir and have nothing to do with fish production.
Will the fish screens stay in place? Answer: Yes, they will not be washed out during run-off.
What percent of the budget is for the park? Answer: This funding will not be used to develop a campground. It will be used to maintain the reservoir, keep debris out of the reservoir (maintain water quality), clean up the access sites, and clean up after campers.
Are these activities consistent with the Council's Program? Answer: Yes, this addresses the measure.
Is the project committed to stocking redband trout? Answer: Our focus is on weak but recoverable stocks rather than on production.
How many tributaries enter Billy Shaw Reservoir? Answer: Two perennial streams and 2-3 intermittent streams.
Are the site evaluations done? Answer: Yes.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: No. Tasks are not clearly aligned with program. Trash removal (1/3 of costs) is not a BPA responsibility.
Programmatic Criteria: No. Project does not satisfy criteria 12, 13, and 14.
General Comment: Project needs closer coordination and consolidation of objectives and tasks with 9701100, 9020, and 8815600.
Comment:
Deferred fish stocking taskComment:
This proposal is disjointed. Proposed work ranges from protecting and enhancing wetlands to cleaning campgrounds and stocking undetermined fish species. The plan to develop a sport trophy fishery is shaky, particularly because the fish species to be used has not been selected. Do the proposers know that native fishes (trout and others) are not already present? The need for the project is not demonstrated. The planned stream habitat techniques are questionable. The combination of habitat work and stocking is not well related or well justified and appears to be questionable. The ISRP believes the proposed work could be harmful to native fish and is not biologically supportable.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $456,899 | $456,899 | $456,899 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website