FY 1999 proposal 9003

Additional documents

TitleType
9003 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRestore/Enhance Trout Creek @ Ashwood Phase II
Proposal ID9003
OrganizationJefferson County Soil & Water Conservation District for Trout Creek Watershed Council (JCSWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMarie Horn
Mailing address243 SW 3rd St. Madras, OR 97741
Phone / email5414753144 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Deschutes
Short descriptionStablize Streambanks, Improve water quality/quantity
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
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
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 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.