FY 1999 proposal 9103
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 |
|---|---|
| 9103 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Upper Deschutes Basin Watershed Coordinator/Council Support |
| Proposal ID | 9103 |
| Organization | Deschutes County Watershed Council (DCWC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Barbara J. Lee |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 894 Bend, OR 97709 |
| Phone / email | 5413837146 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Deschutes |
| Short description | Support the Council’s coordination of watershed activities through funding staff wages and training, administrative and operational expenses, and equipment and software acquisition |
| 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 | $18,000 | |
| Fringe | $4,500 | |
| Supplies | $1,000 | |
| Capital | $3,500 | |
| Travel | $2,000 | |
| Indirect | $2,500 | |
| Subcontractor | $0 | |
| Other | $600 | |
| $32,100 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $32,100 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $32,100 |
| 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:
Technical Issue: Need to provide more detail on the methods, measurable objectives, tasks, and expected results.Technical Issue: Need to describe a monitoring and evaluation plan to determine if the expected results are achieved.
Comment:
Presentation: The sponsor did not give a presentation.Questions/Answers:
How were the WTWG concerns addressed in the revised proposal?
How does this project relate to the objectives and specific resident measures in the Council's Program?
Screening Criteria: No. The proposal doesn't meet a specific council measure.
Technical Criteria: No. This is more of a wildlife proposal than anything else.
Programmatic Criteria: No. The proposal doesn't meet criteria 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18
General Comment: This work should be coordinated with other projects in Upper Deschutes Basin.
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee CommentsComment:
The revised proposal does not provide enough detail on the watershed assessment such as who will implement it and what protocols will be used. The proposal does not describe how enhancement projects will be selected. Scientific oversight and monitoring are not sufficiently addressed. It is not integrated with other BPA habitat projects in the Deschutes.