FY 1999 proposal 199701100
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 |
|---|---|
| 199701100 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhance and Protect Habitat and Riparian Areas on Duck Valley Reservation |
| Proposal ID | 199701100 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (SPT) |
| 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 | Increase critical riparian areas of the Owyhee River and its tributaries as well as preserve the numerous natural springs located on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. |
| Target species | rainbow trout native redband trout bull 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 | $108,000 | |
| Supplies | $65,000 | |
| Operating | $20,000 | |
| Travel | $7,000 | |
| Indirect | $51,000 | |
| $251,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $251,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $251,000 |
| 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: The only constrains that may cause schedule changes or delays would be the inclement weather that often occurs in the Duck Valley area. This may cause changes or delays to some of the construction projects such as access to spring sites, problems accessing some of the streams, or problems in purchasing needed equipment or engineering work.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Return to Sponsor for Revision
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Basically the same as the FY98 proposal – need to provide an explanation of new work in FY99 resulting from FY98 funding.Comment:
Presentation: The project started in FY 1997 and 1999 will be the third year. In 1997 we protected 5 streams. During the 1998 contract period (which began April 4, 1998), we are concentrating on 3 to 4 streams that we believe support redband trout. We plan to conduct habitat surveys, estimate populations, analyze genetics, fence natural springs, plant trees, and provide water troughs for cattle. The habitat is in pretty good shape and needs more protection than enhancement. We hope to make some intermittent streams perennial.Questions/Answers:
Have the ranchers changed their livestock management to protect the investment in habitat work? Answer: We are meeting with the Cattleman's Association and NRCS but our work with them is mostly on education (e.g. salt block placement). We are also working cooperatively on a grazing ordinance to control a disease outbreak on Tribal land. Also, the landowners work with NRCS and have to maintain the improvements after they are installed.
The WTWG asked, based on the work accomplished in 1998, what would be done in 1999. Answer: Stream protection.
The Project History section of the proposal (page 8) looks similar to baseline data collection listed in Sect 4 – Objectives (page 3). Explain. Answer: The habitat work was begun in 5 streams. We have 250 miles of streams on the reservation. In 1999 and beyond, we will finish the habitat work in the other streams and continue to monitor previous work.
Do you have a formal plan of attack? Answer: Yes.
One of the objectives is to repair windmills. What is the hydraulic continuity? Answer: We probably won't repair the windmills. This task could be deleted. It was originally planned in conjunction with fences for cattle, however our Natural Resources Program may do the repairs. They will most likely be doing the repairs on west side of reservation where the streams are intermittent.
The Sho-Pai Tribes are working with IPC but have not reached resolution on who (e.g. IPC?, BOR? BPA?) is responsible for mitigation, and how much.
Screening Criteria: Yes
Technical Criteria: Yes
Programmatic Criteria: Yes
General Comment: Project needs better coordination with related projects. Insufficient details for proposals in related projects.
Comment:
Comment:
This proposal is for a diversity of activities, some of which are clearly needed and valuable and other of which are either too poorly developed to be judged or have poorly justified methods or goals. The scheme for fencing spawning areas (p. 5) looks inadequate. It appears the proposal is to protect and maintain some fairly arbitrary sites. The proposal includes a task to establish a recreational vehicle dumpsite but does not describe how this will benefit fish and wildlife. Many of the methods are not adequately explained. The proposal lists planting trees and native plants and not using rocks and large debris; if this is intended as attempting natural restoration, the methods sound appropriate for an area that has been disturbed in the past. The survey of resident fish and invertebrates is a good idea.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: |
| $302,648 | $302,648 | $302,648 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website