FY 2000 proposal 199800300
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 |
|---|---|
| 199800300 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199800300 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | O&M Funding of Wildlife Habitat on STOI Reservation for Grand Coulee Dam |
| Proposal ID | 199800300 |
| Organization | Spokane Tribe of Indians (STOI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | B.J. Kieffer |
| Mailing address | PO Box 100 Wellpinit, WA 99040 |
| Phone / email | 5092587055 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Inter-Mountain / Columbia Upper |
| Short description | Operations and Maintenance of Lands Acquired for Wildife Protection on SIR |
| Target species | White-tail deer, Mule deer, Yellow Warbler, Sharp-tailed grouse, Ruffed grouse |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Secured Acquisition Funds for Land Purchases |
| 1997 | Lands Acquired for wildlife habitat and enhancements for BPA accreditation. |
| 1998 | Acquired 1393.5 acres of Mitigation Lands, and proposing to purchase another 439.98 acres to total 1833.48 acres and close out acquisition funds. |
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 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 | 2.2 FTE's | $53,040 |
| Fringe | 27.62% Includes FICA, SUTA, FUTA, L&I, Medicare | $14,650 |
| Supplies | Office Supplies, Field Supplies, | $400 |
| Operating | Weed Control, Fence maintenance,Vehicle Maintenacce | $11,580 |
| Travel | Travel and training for two employees | $3,000 |
| Indirect | 21.3% Tribal Indirect | $14,517 |
| $97,187 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $97,187 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $97,187 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until more sufficient detail is given on operation, maintenance, and monitoring for wildlife values in terms of biological gains for target species.Comments: This is a project to carry out operation, maintenance, and enhancement of lands purchased between 1996 and 1998 as mitigation for Grand Coulee flooding of habitat on the ST reservation, with the expectation that the project will continue for the lifetime of the Grand Coulee project. The overall project from planning to completion of land acquisition has been underway since 1991, under various titles and project numbers.
The proposal follows the approach for wildlife projects laid out by the Council and CBFWA. It is based entirely on habitat unit (HU) accounting. The objectives are well laid out in this context as fencing for livestock exclusion and noxious weed control (75%; overall basin-wide objectives for acquired wildlife lands) and monitoring for development of habitat enhancement opportunities (actual enhancement work to be done in subsequent years). The results are well described since 1991, all in the context of land acquisition and HUs. The budget is explicit, although support for 2.2 FTEs seems high for such a routine project. Facilities are described well, and staff are well summarized.
The proposal lacks detail in several important aspects. It is weak in describing restoration objectives. The baseline data and plans to monitor wildlife and vegetation parameters are inadequate. Operation and maintenance activities should be better described. The descriptions of the type and extent of fencing and evaluation of the most sensitive areas should be expanded. The same exact wording appears under more than one heading in the proposal. Confusion exists between objectives, tasks, and methods. The proposal includes an apparent long-term (perpetual?) commitment to control weeds, a questionable element at best.
A principal drawback is one that is common to many wildlife proposals. The benefits of the project are not given in biological terms that relate to the target species listed in the initial part of the proposal. Habitat Units do not say much about direct benefits to whitetail deer, mule deer, yellow warbler, etc. Further, Habitat Units are not described nor are the HEP models used to obtain the units. The novice reader is left without any means for evaluating fundamental biological benefits.
Comment:
Comment:
Comment:
Delay funding until the sponsors address the original ISRP concerns. Although additional information was provided, the response still did not provide the summary of procedures and biological benefits that the ISRP was expecting in the proposal. The response again simply referred to published HEP procedures and CBFWA guidelines without any attempt to describe what these are or what was done using them. Simple summaries would have been helpful to reviewers and could have helped make an otherwise good proposal better and more intelligible. The proposal (and the response) should stand alone without the reader having to look up other documents. In addition, the response did not improve the description of objectives.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: |
| $190,563 | $190,563 | $190,563 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website