FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22065
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 |
---|---|
22065 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Design & Implement a System-wide Fish, Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Enforcement Web-Based Data Center |
Proposal ID | 22065 |
Organization | Steven Vigg & Company |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Steven C. Vigg |
Mailing address | 42418 East Larch Mountain Road Corbett, Oregon 97019 |
Phone / email | 3608718301 / Vigg@teleport.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Steven C. Vigg |
Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | Develop a Columbia Basin web-based data center to facilitate conservation law enforcement data compilation & analysis and information sharing for enforcement programs, resource managers, and public information & education. |
Target species | anadromous salmonids, sturgeon, resident fish, wildlife -- and their essential habitats in the Columbia Basin |
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 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: (329 hrs) | $28,294 |
Fringe | $0 | |
Supplies | $1,500 | |
Travel | $310 | |
Indirect | $0 | |
Capital | $0 | |
PIT tags | $0 | |
Subcontractor | # of tags: Melanie Wahl, Bill Stafford {StaffordDesign.com} (128 hrs) | $11,008 |
Other | $0 | |
$41,112 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $41,112 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $41,112 |
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.
Comment:
Although a database for law enforcement information is perhaps useful, it is not particularly innovative. The need for such a database is a policy question, rather than a technical one.Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposals inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. Coordination is not innovative. (RFC)Comment:
CBFWA recommends not funding this project due to the proposals inability to convince the resident fish managers of its value as an innovative project. Coordination is not innovative. (RFC)