Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Expand Respect the River |
Proposal ID | 9026 |
Organization | USDA Forest Service, Methow Valley Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest (USFS) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Ardis Bynum |
Mailing address | Methow Valley Ranger District, Box 579 Winthrop WA 98862 |
Phone / email | 5099964004 / fs@methow.com |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 1999 |
Province / Subbasin | Upper Mid-Columbia / Methow |
Short description | Respect the River is an interpretive and public contact program which originated with signs along the Methow River, expanded to include both media and one-on-one contacts with river users, and is now proposed for further expansion and effort. |
Target species | |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 |
Forest Service |
$6,000 |
Supplies |
printed booklets, placemats, posters, postcards. Materials for workshops. |
$9,500 |
Subcontractor |
Chuck Tonn; Sheeley Rudeen; The above listed contractors have been working on Respect the River. |
$18,500 |
| $34,000 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost | $34,000 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 1999 budget request | $34,000 |
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: Extreme weather or extreme fire season may alter the completion of Objective 2; but all would be accomplished within 1999
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
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: Need to provide more detail on the measurable objectives and expected results and monitoring and evaluation plans.Technical Issue: Explain the printing vs. staff costs.
Management Issue: Management concern that this may be an in-lieu issue.
Technical Issue: Explain if this project is coordinated with the Methow council (project 9155).
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).
Recommendation:
Adequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The revisions make the proposal marginally adequate, but there was still not enough detail or technical content regarding the program. The public education idea was good but the proposal did not convey how it would be implemented.