FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23042
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 |
---|---|
23042 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Forest and Fish - Road Inventory |
Proposal ID | 23042 |
Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Jenene Fenton |
Mailing address | 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 |
Phone / email | 3609028138 / [email protected] |
Manager authorizing this project | Dave Brittell, Assistant Director |
Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | This proposal is to conduct an engineering condition evaluation/survey of WDFW-owned forest roads basin-wide down to Bonneville. |
Target species | Steelhead, chinook, bull trout, coho, cutthroat, chum, bald eagle, golden eagle, pileated woodpecker, western gray squirrel, sandhill crane. |
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
FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2002 |
---|---|---|---|
$2,012,500 | $1,897,500 | $1,695,300 | $1,634,022 |
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: 1 Engineer, 1 Surveyor, 1 Technician -9 mo, 1 Biologist 3 - 4 months | $111,204 |
Fringe | $28,912 | |
Supplies | $23,726 | |
Travel | $12,000 | |
Indirect | 20.8% of total excluding equipment | $30,238 |
Capital | Survey GPS unit, laptop PC | $50,000 |
$256,080 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2001 cost | $256,080 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2001 budget request | $256,080 |
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
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:
This proposal to evaluate roads on WDFW-owned forest roads does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding.Comment:
A necessary first step, but the proposal will not provide direct benefits. The wildlife committee determined that this project failed to meet one or more of the gatekeeper criteria.