FY 1999 proposal 9099

Additional documents

TitleType
9099 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEducate Landowners and Agencies on Salmon Stream Restoration Methods
Proposal ID9099
OrganizationOregon State University Extension Service (OSU Ext)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMichael Stoltz
Mailing address102 Ballard Hall, OSU Corvallis OR 97331-3606
Phone / email5417372711 / michael.stoltz@orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / 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
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)


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.