FY 1999 proposal 9043
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 |
|---|---|
| 9043 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Introducing Systems Science to Planning and Implementing F&W Recovery |
| Proposal ID | 9043 |
| Organization | Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (DU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dr. Fritz Reid |
| Mailing address | 3074 Gold Canal Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 |
| Phone / email | 9168522000 / freid@ducks.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | |
| Target 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 |
|---|
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 | $398,000 | |
| Fringe | $92,000 | |
| Supplies | $30,000 | |
| Travel | $40,000 | |
| Indirect | $228,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $355,000 | |
| $1,143,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $1,143,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $1,143,000 |
| 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: Weather, river water levels, permitting,
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Return to Sponsor for Revision*
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Management Issue: Integrate this idea with the many existing watershed groups. Describe how this project will assist the local people. Although regional watershed program management and coordination assistance may be needed, there are concerns that, as stated in this proposal, the project would dictate generic fixes across many different watersheds, creating a large potential for conflict with the solutions agreed-to locally. For example, bank stabilization is proposed with no indication of whether it is needed.Technical Issue: Concerned about the logistics and workload generated by evaluating 12 watersheds simultaneously.
Technical Issue: Proposed project appears to include too much planning,
Technical Issue: Concerned that there are not enough benefits to fish.
Technical Issue: Proposal adequately described the activities but did not identify where the work would be performed.
Management Issue: Encourage the sponsor to continue this idea but the current proposal is too open-ended; consider focusing on one or two watersheds to start with.
Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.
Comment:
Does not meet threshold criteria E, FComment:
Ducks Unlimited's FY99 project proposal, "Introducing System Science to Planning & Implementing Fish & Wildlife Recovery in the Watershed", addresses a new approach to watershed restoration that has not been previously considered by the Northwest Power Planning Council. Although submitted as a Wildlife Project for FY99, the Wildlife Caucus believes this proposed approach aimed at restoring watershed functions includes non-wildlife components (in addition to wildlife components). Therefore, the Wildlife Caucus recommends all three CBFWA caucuses review this project if it is resubmitted in the future.The Wildlife Caucus has several specific concerns with DU's project proposal. Funding of this project would affect on-going watershed projects as well as other projects proposed for implementation throughout the Columbia River Basin. There are numerous watershed projects already being conducted throughout the Basin. Any new approach to watershed restoration, such as DU's proposal, should be carefully coordinated with established watershed councils and incorporated into on-going watershed activities and plans to avoid duplication of efforts. Implementation of a new approach without coordination with existing processes and activities would not be a wise use of limited funds. Also, implementation of this project with its proposed budget as proposed would affect the availability of funds for implementing other projects proposed by the various Tribes and Agencies throughout the Basin.
The Wildlife Caucus also has concerns about the technical merit of the DU project proposal. It appears that the success of this proposed approach relies wholly on a total of two or three public meetings. It is assumed that only two or three meeting will be needed for watershed participants to agree on the activities necessary for restoration of a particular watershed. The Wildlife Caucus questions this assumption. As proposed, the mechanism to gain total agreement is the STELLA program. STELLA projects the actions of the suggested restoration activities over time. The Wildlife Caucus has had no experience on the use of this program, and is unwilling to deviate from the existing watershed process, as flawed as it may be, to implement a new process based on a program that no one is familiar with. Experience has shown that even the best and clearest projections of how our actions will affect our future usually do not result in across-the-board agreements among publics with differing goals and perspectives.
In summary, the Wildlife Caucus recommends that DU's project proposal in its present form not be funded in FY99. If DU wishes to resubmit this project proposal and apply for BPA funding in FY00, the Caucus suggests that the project proposal be submitted to all three CBFWA caucuses for review. The Caucus also recommends that the project be incorporated into the on-going activities of an established watershed council. A watershed test case would allow the Tribes and Agencies to review the applicability of the approach to the overall process. The decision to expand this approach to other areas could then be made based on these results.
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)
Inadequate proposal, adequate in part
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal suggests using systems models to explore the outcomes of different land use decisions that are alternatives in restoration. The proposal identifies the problems that will be addressed and establishes the value of a modeling approach. The objective to develop a model appears supportable, but the implementation phase is not technically justified. Evidence that the proposed work could obtain needed coordination with other groups is not presented. Although modeling is generally considered to offer an economical alternative to other ways of gathering data for decision-making, this proposal is surprisingly costly. Activities to follow the modeling phase are not adequately described.