FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22020
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 |
---|---|
22020 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Assess Washougal River and its tributaries |
Proposal ID | 22020 |
Organization | Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Jeff Breckel, Director |
Mailing address | 2127 8th Ave Longview, WA 98632 |
Phone / email | 3604144177 / jbreckel@tdn.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Jeff Breckel |
Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Washougal |
Short description | Complete Phases 2 and 3 assessment to identify, inventory and map both existing high quality habitat and those at-risk from urbanization in order to develop a list of priority restoration projects. |
Target species | Chinook, chum, steelhead, searun cutthroat, and coho |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
45.5734 | -122.3962 | Washougal River |
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: .2 and .15 | $22,600 |
Fringe | $5,650 | |
Supplies | $0 | |
Travel | $0 | |
Indirect | $0 | |
Subcontractor | $42,000 | |
$70,250 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $70,250 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $70,250 |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
LCFRB | Technical Review Team FTE | $4,208 | in-kind |
SRFB | Travel | $25,000 | cash |
SRFB | Supplies, materials, non-expendable equipment | $10,000 | cash |
SRFB | Subcontractor | $57,200 | cash |
$0 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
We particularly recognize the multi-agency participation in development of this project to be one of its positive elements. While it offers to develop new information for the Washougal River, we feel that it does not meet the council's standard for innovative proposals. The methods and tasks that are described have been employed elsewhere in the basin. It is part of an ongoing project, focuses on augmenting existing data, and does not propose to use innovative techniques.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.