Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Restore/Enhance Trout Creek @ Ashwood Phase II |
Proposal ID | 9003 |
Organization | Jefferson County Soil & Water Conservation District for Trout Creek Watershed Council (JCSWCD) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Marie Horn |
Mailing address | 243 SW 3rd St. Madras, OR 97741 |
Phone / email | 5414753144 / |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 1999 |
Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Deschutes |
Short description | Stablize Streambanks, Improve water quality/quantity |
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 |
9366 |
NE Or. Screens/Passage |
Trout CreekWatershed plan |
940200 |
T.C. Habitat Restoration |
Trout Creek Watershed plan |
9303000 |
Buckhollow W.Enhancement |
Basin plan |
9405400 |
Bull Trout Studies C/NE Org. |
Stock status |
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 |
Project Manager |
$4,800 |
Capital |
Camera: photo points (before & after records |
$400 |
Travel |
Project manager |
$1,200 |
Indirect |
clerical support: telephone, copying, postage, film/developing |
$2,400 |
Subcontractor |
|
$48,000 |
| $56,800 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost | $56,800 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 1999 budget request | $56,800 |
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: None foreseen
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: Include more detail. Although the intent of the projects is probably good, the proposals did not provide enough detail upon which to assess the technical merits.Technical Issue: Describe the methods, linkages to specific problems, and how the objectives will be accomplished.
Technical Issue: Explain how the proposed action addresses the critical resource conditions of the subbasin. There is a concern that this work is not focused where the subbasin's critical fish populations can most benefit.
Technical Issue: Explain how the project will significantly benefit fish.
Management Issue: Combine all three proposals (9003, 9004) into one project to show the coordinated effort.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
See 9005
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
Is there a watershed analysis that indicates the work described in these proposals (9003 and 9004) is needed? If so, it should be presented. The proposals do not include a description of the results of past habitat projects. The budget is very high for the size of restoration area described. The proposal should describe its relationship to other habitat restoration projects in Trout Creek.