FY 1999 proposal 9048

Additional documents

TitleType
9048 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleTransfer Attributes From 1:100,000 to 1:24,000-Scale Hydrography
Proposal ID9048
OrganizationIdaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameAnthony Morse
Mailing address1301 North Orchard St. Boise, ID 83706
Phone / email2083277997 / tmorse@idwr.state.id.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Snake / Snake, Salmon, Clearwater, Coeur d’Alene, Selway
Short descriptionTransfer 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
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)


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:

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.


Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

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.