Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Public-Private Cooperative Resource Mgmt in Lower Joseph Cr Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 9119 |
| Organization | Wallowa Resources, Inc. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Diane Shetler |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 274 Enterprise, OR 97828 |
| Phone / email | 5414268053 / wallowar@orednet.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Develop a Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for the lower Joseph Creek watershed; conduct a watershed assessment through public-private partnerships, utilizing the CRMP process… |
| 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 |
|
$20,500 |
| Fringe |
|
$4,920 |
| Supplies |
|
$3,500 |
| Travel |
|
$1,800 |
| Indirect |
|
$1,500 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $32,220 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $32,220 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $32,220 |
| 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: No schedule constraints have been identified.
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: Explain how this position does not duplicate other southeast Washington coordination positions such as the Grande Ronde Model Watershed or Eastern Washington Model Watershed.Technical Issue: Clearly explain why the watershed assessment is needed, and explain the other analyses that have been done on this watershed.
Management Issue: Explain if NRCS cost-sharing has been pursued; along with using the existing model watershed program to implement this work.
Technical Issue: Clearly describe the NPT work.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.Duplicates ongoing work. Some or all of proposed activities are similar or identical to work already funded. Better knowledge or coordination of past or ongoing projects would have reduced or eliminated project need.
Did not respond adequately to technical criteria. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether technical criteria were met, or was complete but did not meet technical criteria.
Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This appears to be a watershed council proposal. The proposal’s strengths include a good description of tasks and milestones, a quantifiable completion date of one year, and the use of a geomorphologist to provide needed expertise. The proposal does not describe how ecological inputs will be considered.