FY 2000 proposal 199501500
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 |
|---|---|
| 199501500 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199501500 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lake Billy Shaw Operations and Maintenance and Evaluation (O&M, M&E) |
| Proposal ID | 199501500 |
| 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 | |
| Target species | Redband trout, introduced trout species (rainbow) trophy fisheries; other resident trout species comprising the native community; anadromous salmonids (reintroduction/off site mitigation; all wildlife species. |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1999 | Fenced approximately 6 miles of reservoir |
| 1999 | Planted native trees and willows |
| 1999 | Fish screens checked and maintained |
| 1999 | O&M plan followed and information recorded (water quality, riparian growth/disturbance) |
| 1999 | Dam monitoring wells checked and information recorded during filling |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8815600 | Stocking Fish in Lakes and streams on the DVIR | Stocking of hatchery 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 the DVIR and Fort Hall. Its operation should be coordinated with the comprehensive Owyhee Basin resident fish management plan. |
| 9701100 | Enhance and Protect Habitat & Riparian Areas on the DVIR | Habitat enhancement is a critical need for Lake Billy Shaw. This is a new reservoir and must be protected and enhanced to provide for the trophy fishery. |
| 20536 | Develop Management Plan & Assess Fish and Wildlife of the Owyhee Basin - DV |
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 | 1 FTE, 2 part-time, 0.1FTE (administration) | $70,000 |
| Fringe | @30% included in personnel | $0 |
| Supplies | fencing, rental equipment, trees, seed, sign materials | $80,000 |
| Operating | Vehicle lease, gas, maintenance, ins. | $25,000 |
| Indirect | @ 26.6% | $46,550 |
| $221,550 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $221,550 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $221,550 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| See umbrella project | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: ESA listings, weather conditions, water year,
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. The proposal is not technically sound and does not offer a sound scientific basis for (or even a clear description of) the work to be done.Comments: This proposal lacks explicit support for almost all of the evaluation categories. Undoubtedly, mitigation for the blocked areas needs to be addressed. However, this proposal is lacking in detail necessary to determine scientific soundness. There is little detail on species that will benefit. The project objectives are unclear and do not match the description in the project abstract. No information is provided on what percent of the total work has been done and what is left to do, e.g., fencing, tree planting, etc. The proposal is for work in an apparently open system, but potential impacts of the work are not addressed or even stated. Non-native fish substitution raises substantial issues that the proposal does not adequately address, specifically whirling disease, competition, and alternatives. The proposed project is not consistent with the other projects proposed in the subbasin. Stocking probably should be limited salmonids that are native to the Owyhee River; if not, the Principal Investigators need to clearly and carefully justify their selection of non-native stock. The CBFWA evaluation is basically in agreement with the above noting that "There is no biological objectives listed. I urge that the native species receive top priority in this reservoir. What we stock should be compatible with the native redband." The ISRP concludes that the proposed project is of questionable value to fish and is not based on sound scientific principles.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: yesTechnical Criteria: yes
Programmatic Criteria: yes
Milestone Criteria: no-There is no biological objectives listed.
General Comments: I urge that the native species receive top priority in this reservoir. What we stock should be compatible with the native redband. Peer review of the program direction and cost analysis.
Comment:
Delay funding until the proposers develop and present a scientifically justified plan for development of Lake Billy Shaw as a fishery. The initial proposal received a Do Not Fund recommendation from reviewers, due to lack of clear presentation or justification of work to be done.The responses address some of the concerns, but fail to address the most fundamental. The response clarifies short-term tasks to be accomplished in developing and maintaining the reservoir. However, the long-term intent of the project is to establish a fishery, with the reservoir serving to host that fishery. The long-term goals of the project are not adequately described, nor are methods for their accomplishment and evaluation given. The response does not talk about fish or fish habitat, and gives no detailed discussion of goals and plans for use of native or non-native fish or for how these plans might be developed and judged. The response indicates that the proposers want to re-establish native fish, but does not go on to develop this plan and relate it to the overall proposal.
To facilitate an evaluation of the effects of Lake Billy Shaw on native fish and wildlife populations, monitoring should include protocols for the collection and analysis of data on fish and wildlife populations and on habitat quality and quantity.
Comment:
Fund pending compliance
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract ProcessNW 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: |
| $456,899 | $456,899 | $456,899 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website