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 / [email protected] |
| 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)