FY 1999 proposal 199700400

Additional documents

TitleType
199700400 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleResident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams
Proposal ID199700400
OrganizationKalispel Tribe of Indians (KNRD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJason R. Scott
Mailing addressP.O. Box 39 Usk, WA 99180
Phone / email5094451147 / osterman@povn.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Columbia / Pend Oreille, Spokane, Upper Columbia Mainstem
Short descriptionCoordinating, collecting, assessing, and making recommendations based on blocked area fisheries information.
Target speciesAll species in the blocked area.
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
5528100 Lake Roosevelt kokanee net pens Blocked area coordination
8503800 Colville Tribal fiish hatchery Blocked area coordination
9001800 Habitat improvements-Lake Roosevelt Blocked area coordination
9104600 Spokane Tribal hatchery (Galbraith Springs) O&M Blocked area coordination
9104700 Sherman Creek hatchery O&M Blocked area coordination
9404300 Lake Roosevelt Monitoring/data collection program Blocked area coordination
9500100 Kalispel Tribe resident fish Blocked area coordination
9501100 Chief Joseph kokanee enhancement project Blocked area coordination
9502800 Assessment of fishery improvements in Moses Lake Blocked area coordination
9506700 Lake Roosevelt rainbow trout net pens Blocked area coordination
9700300 Box Canyon Watershed project Blocked area coordination
8810804 Streamnet Resident fish and region wide coordination.
9106001 Pend Oreille WetlandsII Subbasin coordination

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 $125,000
Fringe 33% $41,250
Supplies $20,000
Capital $30,000
Travel $12,000
Indirect 28.7% $65,507
Subcontractor Washington DFW; Spokane Tribe of Indians, Spokane Tribal Fish & Wildlife; Confederated Tribe of the Colville Reservation, Fish and Wildlife Division; Unidentified subcontractor $100,000
Other $11,250
Other $11,250
Other $11,250
Other $11,250
$438,757
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$438,757
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$438,757
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: It is impossible to identify all constraints and problems that may occur. While we will make every attempt to stay on schedule, unforseen assignments, bad weather, equipment failure, etc. will delay progress.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: This project addresses the need for a centralized database and formalizes the coordination between the Spokane Tribe, the Colville Tribe, the Kalispel Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The project has several phases: Phase 1 (slated for completion in 1998) will set up central office space, acquire central computers, establish links to satellite offices and Streamnet, coordinate data collection system, and formalize the coordination between the co managers. Phase 2 (1999 - 2001) will develop analysis tools, input and assess data, identify data gaps, and recommend management efforts for the blocked area. StreamNet will link templates and data for spatial representation. Phase 3 will begin in 2002 and will implement, monitor and evaluate recommendations.

Questions/Answers:

Why doesn't the proposal include resumes? Answer: Some people are not hired yet. The Kalispel Tribe position is that the personnel we hire fall under the guidance of the Tribe.

Is this a data management project? Answer: Not entirely. When the data gaps have been identified, the project will move to implementation. The data will be displayed spatially.

How will data compiled by this project modify management actions in the Pend Oreille system? Answer: The management agencies will use this information. It will also be available to the FERC re-licensing proceedings. The Forest Service has land in this area that the other management entities do not have access to. This project brings information together for all of the co-managers to share. FERC license holders are contributing to the project.

What would happen if the BPA funding ran out? Will the database be maintained? Answer: Maintaining the database can be done by the Kalispel Tribe. The tribe has a strong commitment to do this. Funding for implementing the management recommendations would have to be addressed at that point.

Screening Criteria: Yes

Technical Criteria: Yes. Data management tasks not aligned with objectives in FY 2000 and beyond.

Programmatic Criteria: Yes


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:


Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

It is a good idea to conduct a resident fish stock status project, but this proposal does not ensure that the project will be well implemented. The proposal lacks both methodological detail and a clear conceptual framework. The objectives are not consistent. BPA should examine the budget.
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:
$540,000 $540,000 $540,000

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website