FY 2000 proposal 20536
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop Management Plan & Assess Fish &Wildlife - Owyhee Basin, D.V.I.R. |
| Proposal ID | 20536 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (SPT - DVIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Guy Dodson Sr. |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV 89832 |
| Phone / email | 2087593246 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Owyhee |
| Short description | Design a comprehensive (umbrella) fish & wildlife management program for the Owyhee River basin within the Duck Valley Indian Reservation - for the cost-effective restoration of its natural ecosystem for the benefit of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe & society. |
| Target species | Redband trout; bull trout; introduced trout species (e.g., rainbow, cutthroat, brook) for put and take fisheries; other resident fish species comprising the native community; anadromous salmonids (reintroduction/off-site mitigation); all wildlife 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 |
|---|
| 9701100 |
Enhance and Protect Habitat & Riparian Areas on the Duck Valley Indian Res |
Habitat enhancement is a critical need for comprehensive fish & wildlife management of the Owyhee Basin DVIR |
| 9501500 |
Lake Billy Shaw Wetlands Catch & Release Fishery O&M |
A new BPA- funded reservoir was completed in 1998 on the DVIR -- the development of its fisheries needs to be integrated within a comprehensive fish management plan. |
| 8815600 |
Stocking Fish in Lakes and Streams on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation |
Stocking of hatchey trout in reservoirs and streams has been implemented for many years to provide fisheries and economic benefits to the DVIR -- this program needs to be re-evaluated & integrated in the rationale of a comprehensive fish management plan. |
| 9500600 |
Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone-Paiute Joint Culture Facility |
A BPA-funded fish culture facility is being developed to provide trout production to supplement fisheries on Duck Valley and Fort Hall reservations. Its operation should be coordinated with the comprehensive Owyhee Basin resident fish management plan. |
| 20536 |
Develop Management Plan & Assess Fish & Wildlife Of The Owyhee Basin, DVIR |
|
| 9701100 |
Enhance and Protect Habitat and Riparian Areas on DVIR |
|
| 8815600 |
Implement Fishery Stocking Program Consistent with Native Fish Conservation |
|
| 20092 |
Inventory Wildlife Species & Populations Of The Owyhee Basin, DVIR |
|
| 20094 |
Assess Resident Fish Stocks Of The Owyhee Basin, DVIR |
|
| 20040 |
Develop a Fish & Wildlife Management Plan for the Owyhee Basin, DVIR |
|
| 20093 |
Evaluate the Feasibility for Anadromous Fish Reintroduction in the Owyhee |
|
| 20041 |
Develop a Fish & Wildlife Conservation Law Enforcement Plan, DVIR |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
{Umbrella Project: 0.66 FTE -- Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director; 0.1 FTE Fishery Biologist} |
$55,500 |
| Fringe |
{included in Personnel category above} |
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$0 |
| Travel |
|
$14,500 |
| Indirect |
{26.6% of above Items} |
$15,820 |
| Subcontractor |
{Fisheries Consultant} |
$48,000 |
| $133,820 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $133,820 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $133,820 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
|
None identified at this time - we will seek future opportunities |
$0 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None identified
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund for one year
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for 1 year (with dollar costs folded into the relevant proposals for specific work, as an administrative cost), during which the initial objectives of planning and testing sampling methods could be done. Subsequent funding to implement the programs could then be evaluated for the scientific quality of the sampling and management schemes, which can not yet be done. A continuation proposal could at that time be expected to provide solid descriptions and justifications of methods to be used and could give background data such as species lists, abundance, distributions, etc.
Comments:
This umbrella proposal provides background and integration for the several proposals from the DVIR for development of fish and wildlife programs. The plans are at any early stage, and most of the sub-proposals request money for planning, including the incorporation of consultants to aid in development of sampling and other technical plans where expertise is not yet available internally. The proposed work includes surveys of fish and wildlife to establish management needs, habitat enhancement and protection, and some stocking of a particular fishery. The proposals covered by this umbrella are much improved over those submitted last year and the decision to devote time to planning, using consultants to provide needed expertise, is a good one. The umbrella has a good comprehensive overview of the problem but is short on detail as to how it will coordinate the 7 sub-projects, so it is hard to evaluate the likely effectiveness of coordination. The proposal has several shortcomings. It lacked a clear and detailed statement of what will be done, how and when it will be done, what the expected outcomes will be, and how they will be evaluated. However, a year of planning, to develop these details, is justified. Several of the component projects plan to use non-native fishes to support recreational fisheries. This is one of the most significant documented threats to native fishes, especially native salmonids, and this mitigation strategy should not be funded by a program that is attempting to enhance persistence of native species in the Columbia River Basin. If artificial production is necessary to substitute for losses, these projects should focus on the possibility of using native species.
This umbrella proposal has its own budget and the ISRP recommends that this budget be folded into the specific proposals that these administrative functions support, as administrative costs associated with those. Additionally, this proposal has a very large travel budget without a justification for why this much is needed
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Screening Criteria: no- I could not find specific resident fish program measures. It is not consistent with F & W program. Technical Criteria: no- I question the need for the project. It is not cost effective. This should be either biologist or consultant funded, but not both and not at that rate for five years.
Programmatic Criteria: no- It is not an urgent threat to the populations.
Milestone Criteria: no-It is a planning effort.
General Comments: Separate wildlife from Resident fish components. The proposal was verbose and hard to follow.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];