FY 1999 proposal 199705900

Additional documents

TitleType
199705900 Narrative Narrative
199705900 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleSecuring Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon
Proposal ID199705900
OrganizationODFW, OWC, CTWSRO, CTUIR, BPT, USFWS, TPL, TNC, ONHP (ODFW, OWC, CTWSRO, CTUIR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn Beck
Mailing addressP.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207
Phone / email5038725260 / john.s.beck@state.or.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionFacilitate coordination and planning between Oregon wildlife managers via individual funding of wildlife planning and coordination staff for each of the parties involved.
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 $107,657
Fringe $30,921
Supplies $2,445
Operating $3,220
Capital $3,767,983
Travel $36,262
Indirect $51,512
Subcontractor $0
$4,000,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$4,000,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$4,000,000
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)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Possible constraints might include delays due to extensive landowner negotiations, NEPA requirements, slow response times from regulatory agencies regarding issuance of permits for proposed enhancement work.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Umbrella project encompassing projects 9106, 9130, 9140, 9705904-9705916
Recommendation:
Not Rated (see individual Oregon wildlife proposals)
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This looks like an umbrella for all the Oregon wildlife projects. Each of those was individually reviewed; consequently, the ISRP did not rate this proposal. This proposal does not clearly describe how it is linked to component projects. The proposal instructions are not followed -- too long a "short description", too long an abstract, no staff listed, and relationships to other projects are not in Section 3 (although in Section 8). The proposal needs to give specific objectives in addition to general, administrative objectives. The history of wildlife mitigation administration in the Fish and Wildlife Program, which is found in all the Oregon wildlife mitigation projects, is well stated. The methods are general, but good, and the proposal is well referenced. The programmatic need is nearly all administrative, but plans and reports are referenced. It is a marginal quality proposal for the high cost. (9705914)