FY 2000 proposal 20071
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 |
|---|---|
| 20071 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20071 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Crab Lake and Adjacent Reaches of Crab Creek |
| Proposal ID | 20071 |
| Organization | Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (DU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Andy Engilis, Jr. |
| Mailing address | Ducks Unlimited, 3074 Gold Canal Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6116 |
| Phone / email | 9168522000 / aengilis@ducks.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Crab |
| Short description | Restore Crab Lake and adjacent reaches of Crab Creek. Crab Lake was drained and Crab Creek altered for agricultural purposes early this century. This project will restore historic habitat conditions. |
| Target species | This project will restore important habitat for many species of waterfowl, shorebirds, neo-tropical migrants and wading birds. Resident fish species will benefit from wetland, riparian and in-stream restoration activities. |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $0 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | Materials for water control structures, trees, shrubs | $110,000 |
| NEPA | $5,000 | |
| Construction | Topographic surveys, engineering support, contingencies | $50,000 |
| Subcontractor | Installation of structures, trees, dirtwork | $200,000 |
| $365,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $365,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $365,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural Resources Conservation Service | Land Acquisition (Wetland Reserve Program) and Construction Practices | $1,295,000 | unknown |
| Ducks Unlimited | Engineering, Construction Management and Construction Practices | $50,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: This project is contingent upon acceptance of these properties into the Wetlands Reserve Program. This acceptance is expected during 1999.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fund for one year (low-medium priority)
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year (low-medium priority). Subsequent funding contingent on addressing ISRP comments. The project was not preceded by a watershed assessment, and there was some question whether the activities would enhance native or non-native fishes.Comments: There was not a clear connection between this project and the Fish and Wildlife Program. They have not justified the priority of the project in terms of the watershed; e.g. the project has not been preceded by a watershed assessment. How will this project benefit the ecosystem? The approach to restore historic habitat conditions appears good. However, the project area is so dominated by non-native species such as carp that benefits to native fishes will likely be limited. It seems possible that non-native species could benefit as much as native fishes. They claim the project will enhance native fishes but the target species are not identified. There is very little mention of monitoring. The project does have a good cost share element.
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: no- There are no Resident fish measures listed.Technical Criteria: no- It does not clearly state direct benefits to Resident fish. Any fish contributions are incidental.
Programmatic Criteria: no-It does not address urgent requirements, and it doesn't meet Criteria 12,15,16.
Milestone Criteria: no- There are no milestones in the proposal.
General Comments: It looks to be a wildlife project-please forward to Wildlife Caucus.
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal does not demonstrate a clear linkage to BPA's mitigation obligations, does not identify direct fish and wildlife benefits.Is this a private hunt club?
Section 10 (information transfer) promotes Ducks Unlimited and indicates that this project is a DU responsibility. BPA funding does not seem appropriate.
Comment:
Rank Comments: Granted that there was not a clear connection between this project and the Fish and Wildlife Program, the approach to restore historic habitat conditions appears good.Comment:
Granted that there was not a clear connection between this project and the Fish and Wildlife Program, the approach to restore historic habitat conditions appears good.Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];