FY 1999 proposal 9012
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 9012 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Mitigate Effects of Runoff & Erosion on Salmonid Habitat in Pine Hollow |
| Proposal ID | 9012 |
| Organization | Pine Hollow Watershed Council, c/o Sherman Soil and Water Conservation District (Sherman SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jeff Hopkins-Clark |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 405 Moro, OR 97039 |
| Phone / email | 5415653216 / scswcd@transport.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / John Day |
| Short description | Phase 1 will implement practices to reduce erosion and flooding, allowing active and natural recovery of riparian vegetation and channel type. Phase 2 will focus on replanting or protecting critical areas within the stream corridor. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
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 | 3 people, ~1/2 FTE, total value ~$12,000. BPA share: 18%, Other Sources: GWEB, ODA, Sherman County | $2,117 |
| Fringe | Total value, $3000, Other info as above | $529 |
| Operating | 100% provided by landowners | $0 |
| Capital | Memory Upgrade: $85, Speed upgrade, $99, and hard drive upgrade, $224 | $413 |
| Subcontractor | Landowners hire contractors to complete their work. They then submit a | $23,901 |
| $26,960 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $26,960 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $26,960 |
| 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: Engineering assistance from NRCS is limited. Riparian work will not be started until upland work is completed. The main constraint to riparian recovery is excessive peak flows. Completion of upland runoff control work may be considered a milestone.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Good demonstration of cost sharing, and landowner involvement.Comment:
Comment:
This proposal does a good job of addressing both fish and wildlife needs. It brings together a diverse group of interests. Monitoring data should be reported (published) not just stored in files. The proposal needs to clearly describe the results of watershed assessments, potential downstream effects of the project, and connection to other projects in basin.