FY 1999 proposal 9061
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 |
|---|---|
| 9061 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | River Wetlands Restoration and Evaluation Program |
| Proposal ID | 9061 |
| Organization | USDA Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Virginia Kelly |
| Mailing address | 902 Wasco Ave, Suite 200 Hood River, OR 97031 |
| Phone / email | 5413862333 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Sandy |
| Short description | Restore 200 acres of wetland and associated upland habitat at Sandy River Delta. Restoration would be part of a series of large scale Lower Columbia River wetlands GIS mapping, habitat restoration, and evaluation and monitoring experiments. |
| Target species | |
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Subcontractor | $125,000 | |
| $125,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $125,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $125,000 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $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.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Need to describe the specific measurable objectives, and provide more detail on how this work will achieve the expected restoration results.Comment:
Comment:
The study's principal attributes are its strong cost-sharing component, its linkage with other agencies and institutions, and its role in wildlife mitigation. The ISRP review team comments, however, that the proposal is vague on methodology, does not adequately describe fish benefits, and offers overly succinct objectives and tasks. Concluding that work already appears to be in progress without Bonneville Power Administration funding, reviewers ask whether the U. S. Forest Service or BPA should properly fund this study of a refuge administered by USFS.