FY 2000 proposal 20027
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Electronic Columbia Basin Watershed Newsletter |
| Proposal ID | 20027 |
| Organization | Intermountain Communications (IC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Bill Crampton |
| Mailing address | 506 NW 2First Street Pendleton, OR 97801 |
| Phone / email | 5419669706 / intercom@ucinet.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Delivers by email to policymakers, stakeholders, watershed councils, media and the public a monthly electronic newsletter offering complete information about Columbia Basin watershed councils and other watershed-related news. |
| Target species | Columbia Basin fish and wildlife |
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 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 |
Senior Editor, writer, admin. asst. |
$44,400 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
office overhead |
$1,200 |
| Operating |
Telephone |
$2,000 |
| Travel |
coverage of meetings, workshops, conferences in Columbia Basin |
$6,000 |
| Other |
email delivery & website posting |
$3,000 |
| $56,600 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $56,600 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $56,600 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Intermountain Communications |
office overhead, telephone, internet |
$2,500 |
unknown |
| (same) |
equipment |
$12,000 |
unknown |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Delay funding until the proposers provide more detail on the missing information described in the comments.
Comments:
This proposal is to develop a monthly electronic newsletter for watershed councils to provide information, education and communication. Such a bulletin would probably be a useful information tool for watershed councils, but the proposal does not clearly establish the need for it within the Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposal is sparse in detail. An assessment of the demand for this service and a discussion of the methods to be used in assessing its impact are needed. Does a monthly newsletter provide timely information to policymakers? What types of information will be provided? Will data be shared? Will research results be reported? Will useful information from "outside" the watershed council system be presented? How will impacts be assessed? How specifically does this proposal differ from Project 20029? The proposers are the same people who produce the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Newsletter, a product that the ISRP considers very high quality and useful, but in this proposal it is not clear exactly what the Council is being asked to fund.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Not an essential element of the management plan. Articles and information could be provided in Columbia Basin Bulletin. No demonstrated need for this project.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Explain more clearly why this project is necessary. BPA should actively promote this project. If it is recommended for FY2000 funding, both BPA and users should provide financial support.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];