FY 1999 proposal 199501300
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 |
|---|---|
| 199501300 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Nez Perce Trout Ponds |
| Proposal ID | 199501300 |
| Organization | Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | James L Mauney |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 |
| Phone / email | 2088437320 / jamesm@nezperce.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Clearwater |
| Short description | Repair 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 species | trout |
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 | $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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.
Fundable if funds available
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.
Comment:
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.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: |
| $183,561 | $183,561 | $183,561 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website