FY 1999 proposal 199204800
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 |
|---|---|
| 199204800 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range |
| Proposal ID | 199204800 |
| Organization | Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Steven L. Judd, Senior Wildlife Biologist |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155 |
| Phone / email | 5096348845 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Columbia / Upper Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Protect, enhance, monitor, evaluate wildlife habitats and species for partial mitigation for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams. Site specific management plans will be implemented to protect and enhance wildlife habitat. |
| 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 | $99,233 | |
| Fringe | $29,770 | |
| Supplies | $2,098 | |
| Operating | $79,000 | |
| Travel | $1,000 | |
| Indirect | $38,899 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| $250,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $250,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $250,000 |
| 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: Cost Percentage above applies to FY 99 only. The biggest constraint could be receiving adequate funding in a timely manner, to permit project activities to procede on schedule. Catastropic events will determine schedules and tasks.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Comment:
If these are both [9013 and 199204800] part of the tribal habitat mitigation project, they should be listed together. There is a programmatic need for these projects, but the proposals do not make clear how they would be implemented. There is no description of how lands will be prioritized for purchase. There is no description of long-range goals and how these can be evaluated. Conservation easement requirements are not noted.NW 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: |
| $460,000 | $460,000 | $460,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website