FY 1999 proposal 199609400

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
199609400 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Habitat Units Acquisition
Proposal ID	199609400
Organization	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Jenene Ratassepp
Mailing address	600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone / email	3607531690 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	Restore/enhance 100,000+ acres of wildlife habitat in Washington to mitigate for losses associated with Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Chief Joseph, Grand Coulee dams.
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
Personnel		$415,964
Fringe		$105,221
Operating		$242,650
Capital		$350,000
Travel		$22,210
Indirect		$560,000
Subcontractor		$0
Other		$1,629,555
		$3,325,600

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$3,325,600
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$3,325,600
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Weather can cause delays in implementing enhancement measures.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

$233,300 listed separately under project 9106100. Additional $37,800 in administrative overhead not included in original project proposal.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Inadequate proposal, adequate purpose

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

Although the purpose is appropriate, this is an inadequate proposal that ranked near the bottom of the set. The proposal writers should have described the enhancement activities. There should be better monitoring of biodiversity and wildlife populations. There is little technical content to review. The project history section takes a project-by-project approach that should be used in the methods section. There are many subprojects that could be better described. This is clearly inadequate documentation for the expenditure of over $3 million/year. Why are there significant indirect costs in the budget, when a substantial amount of the budget is for land acquisition? This financial aspect needs review beyond the ISRP. (9106100)

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$289,225	$289,225	$289,225

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website