FY 2000 proposal 20042
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 |
|---|---|
| 20042 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Integrating Okanogan and Methow Watershed Data for Salmonid Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 20042 |
| Organization | Okanogan Conservation District (Okanogan CD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Craig Nelson |
| Mailing address | 1251 South 2nd Ave. Rm 101 Okanogan, WA 98840 |
| Phone / email | 5094220855 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Okanogan |
| Short description | Gather, compile, and integrate all relevant watershed, fisheries, and water-quality information into a pre-developed computerized information tool for dissemination to policy makers and stakeholders for use in watershed restoration planning and monitoring |
| Target species | Steelhead, Spring Chinook Salmon, Sockeye, Bull Trout, Redband Trout, Cutthroat Trout |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| 9604200 | Salmon Creek Anadromous Fisheries Restoration Project | Cooperative |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $22,755 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $300 | |
| Operating | $3,286 | |
| Capital | $4,500 | |
| Travel | $3,090 | |
| Indirect | $6,600 | |
| Subcontractor | Terraqua/Kier Associates | $228,754 |
| $269,285 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $269,285 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $269,285 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| USF&WS | In-kind and GIS | $1,500 | unknown |
| WDF&W | In-kind and GIS | $1,500 | unknown |
| WDNR | In-kind and GIS | $1,500 | unknown |
| Okanogan County | In-kind and GIS | $2,500 | unknown |
| Colville Confederated Tribes | In-kind and GIS | $2,500 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Assumes a project start date of October 1, 1999. End dates for each objective will be based on actual start date as detailed in the methods.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund (high priority). They need to identify who will manage the KRIS database after the initial two years.Comments: Overall, this proposal is clearly stated, reasonable, and has worthwhile objectives. KRIS has a record of success in the Klamath. Generally, the tasks and objectives are well explained, although the reviewers would have appreciated more detail about the specific categories of information that would go into KRIS. The procedure for prioritizing information was incompletely explained. Who is managing the database after 2001? Are there ongoing costs after the two years? The resource management committee may not provide a consistent long-term base for continued operation of KRIS.
Comment:
Comment:
The framework for this information is currently being provided under another BPA project through Streamnet. The proposers should approach Streamnet to provide and retrieve information for their area. The high level of hidden costs under the subcontractors heading is questionable. There was no specific long term strategy to keep data base updated into the future.Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Proposal does not include measurable time-referenced biological objectives and milestones.Stated objectives are actually tasks.
Project success is speculative, based on assumptions, and is dependent on receiving data from other agencies.
It is unclear who is doing which tasks. The FTEs do not add up.
Partnership is minimal (3% of project).
Only 13% of the costs are shown. 87% are hidden (subcontractors).
Why should BPA pay for Conservation District dues?
Comment:
Rank Comments: This is an important subbasin project to collect, evaluate, and make available, all relevant watershed and fishery restoration information directly affecting the project area. Policy makers, restoration experts, and the general public have been frustrated due to the lack of integration of data and information, and the inability to easily access existing information.Comment:
This is an important subbasin project to collect, evaluate, and make available, all relevant watershed and fishery restoration information directly affecting the project area. Policy makers, restoration experts, and the general public have been frustrated due to the lack of integration of data and information, and the inability to easily access existing information.Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];