Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assess Habitat for Anadromous Fish Upriver of Chief Joseph Dam |
| Proposal ID | 9018 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Christopher J. Fisher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 862 Omak, WA 98841 |
| Phone / email | 5096348689 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Columbia / Upper Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Conduct surveys to determine the quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish between Chief Joseph Dam and Grand Coulee Dam. Investigate the feasibility of providing passage for adult/juvenile fish through Chief Joseph Dam.
|
| 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 |
|---|
|
none |
|
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 |
2 Full time employees; 1 Seasonal employee |
$75,000 |
| Fringe |
30% of salary (based on 1997 or 1998 figures) |
$22,500 |
| Supplies |
miscellaneous |
$2,000 |
| Operating |
Fuel, vehicle servicing, outboard fuel and servicing |
$2,000 |
| Capital |
none |
$0 |
| Tag |
none |
$0 |
| Travel |
Updates and presentations |
$1,000 |
| Indirect |
39.2% of salary (based on 1997 figures) |
$29,400 |
| Subcontractor |
none |
$40,000 |
| $171,900 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $171,900 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $171,900 |
| 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: No schedule constraints are expected.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Incomplete This project is inappropriately designated as a Flow/survival project type. It is primarily a watershed project and should so indicate. Difficult to evaluate because criteria are insufficient to fully evaluate watershed projects.
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Incomplete Lacks sufficient detail to judge whether criterion is met.
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Incomplete Lacks sufficient detail to judge whether criterion is met.
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Incomplete Lacks sufficient detail to judge whether criterion is met.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Budget constraints. Proposal was found to be technically sound and appropriate but was deferred because other work was judged more urgent and funds were not adequate for all needed work.
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is not adequately related to other projects. It is a good idea to get long-term natural production in the river but methods to accomplish objectives are not adequately described.