FY 2000 proposal 20029
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Electronic Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Research Report |
| Proposal ID | 20029 |
| 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 | Deliver by email to policymakers, stakeholders, media, and the public a monthly electronic newsletter offering summary information about research and research-related activities relevant to Columbia Basin fish and wildlife restoration efforts. |
| 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 |
N/A |
$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:
Fund for one year to see how well it works
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund for one year to see how well it works. If the report did nothing more than provide summaries of the scientific reports submitted to BPA it would provide a valuable service.
Comments:
This proposal is very much like the watershed newsletter proposal (20027) and suffers from the same weaknesses. As with 20027, an assessment of the demand for the service and a discussion of methods that will be used to assess its impact are necessary. The programmatic need is not clear. Does a monthly newsletter provide timely information to policymakers? Will it duplicate other efforts? This proposed research report covers a much larger subject area than the watershed council newsletter, so it would be helpful to have more detail on how it would be done. How will information be prioritized? What quality control will be employed? Again, the ISRP considers the products produced by the proposer to be 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:
Criteria all: Met? yes -
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. Research results are currently available through BPA website.
Recommendation:
Rank 34
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
Rank Comments:
The ISRP judge that if the report provides at least summaries of the scientific reports submitted to BPA it would provide a valuable service to the Basin.
Recommendation:
Rank 34
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
The ISRP judge that if the report provides at least summaries of the scientific reports submitted to BPA it would provide a valuable service to the Basin.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];