Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Educate Landowners and Agencies on Salmon Stream Restoration Methods |
Proposal ID | 9099 |
Organization | Oregon State University Extension Service (OSU Ext) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Michael Stoltz |
Mailing address | 102 Ballard Hall, OSU Corvallis OR 97331-3606 |
Phone / email | 5417372711 / michael.stoltz@orst.edu |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 1999 |
Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | Educate stakeholders with workshops, demonstration and research, on riparian enhancement, reduction of soil erosion, improving water quality and quantity. |
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 |
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 |
|
$214,000 |
Fringe |
|
$67,808 |
Supplies |
|
$38,938 |
Operating |
|
$180,000 |
Travel |
|
$105,000 |
Indirect |
|
$141,427 |
Subcontractor |
|
$90,938 |
| $838,111 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost | $838,111 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 1999 budget request | $838,111 |
FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $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.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Explain how the objectives are measurably directed toward fish and wildlife benefits.Technical Issue: Explain how the project provides the information and education functions for a specific program that is related to a watershed approach.
Management Issue: Explain why this work is characterized as a demonstration project when there are already many good examples of restoration available everywhere.
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.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Pending
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This is a poorly written, disjointed proposal that ranked near the bottom of the set. It is full of misspellings. The objectives do not fit the project. The proposal does not make clear why there are a stream temperature study and a stream health study in the midst of an education proposal. No collaboration is evident with other Fish and Wildlife Program projects doing stream/watershed restoration. They do not adequately reference research and findings from Oregon State University work in Eastern Oregon. Although parts of the work are probably needed, the proposal as a whole is inadequate.