FY 1999 proposal 9048
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 |
|---|---|
| 9048 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Transfer Attributes From 1:100,000 to 1:24,000-Scale Hydrography |
| Proposal ID | 9048 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Anthony Morse |
| Mailing address | 1301 North Orchard St. Boise, ID 83706 |
| Phone / email | 2083277997 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Snake, Salmon, Clearwater, Coeur d’Alene, Selway |
| Short description | Transfer topology and fishery-related attributes of the established 1:100,000-scale National Hydrography Data Set to the new and incomplete 1:24,000-scale hydrography. |
| 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 | $37,880 | |
| Fringe | $11,175 | |
| Supplies | plotting supplies | $1,250 |
| Operating | software and hardware maintenance | $3,750 |
| Capital | augment state anonymous ftp site; computer replacement | $7,250 |
| Travel | training | $5,000 |
| Indirect | $16,550 | |
| Subcontractor | Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Contractor (to be determined) | $134,000 |
| $216,855 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $216,855 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $216,855 |
| 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.
Return to Sponsor for Revision*
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Management Issue: Management flag – evaluate if this project duplicates other efforts (e.g., Forest Service, State GIS); and whether this work should be funded by other sources (if it's not already).Technical Issue: Need to clearly describe the watershed benefits.
Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.
Comment:
Presentation: The project sponsor did not give a presentation.Questions/Comments:
How is this project linked to the Council's Program ? It does not appear to address a measure.
Why is IDWR the sponsor when 2/3 of the project budget is contracted to IDFG?
Is this information on GIS?
How will transferring the attributes benefit resident fish?
Screening Criteria: No. The proposal doesn't address a specific Council Measure.
Technical Criteria: No. What are the direct benefits to fish?
Programmatic Criteria: No. The proposal didn't meet criterion 11.
General Comment: This appears to be a worthy project but the BPA Direct program/ Resident Fish Budget is the wrong funding source. This type of work should be done on a system/region basis.
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee CommentsComment:
This is an adequate proposal with good objectives and well-planned work. It ranked in the midrange of the set. This project could be useful, especially to compare water quality, but it is unclear how they are going to monitor the usefulness of this work. They should have a means to document who uses their product. It is not entirely clear why there is need for the scale change. No relationships to other projects are given. The text says it is a continuation of a previous project, but previous history and efforts are not well documented.