FY 1999 proposal 199403900
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Wallowa Basin Project Planning |
| Proposal ID | 199403900 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Don Bryson |
| Mailing address | 201 W. North St., Rm 113 Enterprise, OR 97828 |
| Phone / email | 5414260119 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Liaison between Tribe and Wallowa County; help coordinate efforts by county, landowners, state & federal agencies; help develop action & management plans, restoraton projects, habitat monitoring plan. |
| 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 |
|---|
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 |
|
$24,694 |
| Fringe |
|
$6,174 |
| Supplies |
|
$473 |
| Operating |
|
$4,456 |
| Travel |
|
$5,643 |
| Indirect |
|
$12,313 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| Other |
|
$1,560 |
| $55,310 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $55,310 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $55,313 |
| 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: 1. The Tribe’s priorities may change.
2. NEPA, NMFS/USF&W consultation, and fill and removal permit applications may take longer than anticipated.
3. Project opportunities may occur which were not anticipated.
4. Land owner availability for projects may change.
5. Unforseen issues (eg. having to fill out two sets of questionnaires like this one plus a mid-year set of questions for FY98 BPA funding).
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:
Management Issue: Explain how this effort is coordinated with, and does not duplicate the Grande Ronde Model Watershed.Technical Issue: Explain how this project directly benefits fish and wildlife.
Technical Issue: Resubmit for FY99 work based on approved FY98 funding.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Adequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
9403900 is a proposal for a tribal liaison. It should be joined with 9702500, which describes the activities to be done by the liaison. The original proposals did not describe objectives, methods, or technical justification for activities. The revised proposal provides sufficient technical justification and more detail overall on the need for planning and coordination, but it does not clearly explain methods. The project needs to have clear criteria by which success of activities will be evaluated.