FY 1999 proposal 199303000

Additional documents

TitleType
199303000 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleBuck Hollow Watershed Enhancement
Proposal ID199303000
OrganizationWasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (WCSWCD)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRon Graves
Mailing address2325 River Road, Suite 3 The Dalles, OR 97058
Phone / email5412966178 / wascoswcd@netcnct.net
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Deschutes
Short descriptionEnhance the health of the Buck Hollow Watershed through comprehensive implementation of conservation systems using a variety of practices to improve land management…
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

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 $40,880
Fringe $10,792
Supplies $15,000
Travel $264
Indirect $13,025
Subcontractor $20,000
$99,961
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$99,961
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$99,961
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: Cooperation of local landowners and continued access to project areas are the only constraining factors to meeting these milestones. Fire danger and wet road conditions routinely hinder access for short periods of time but are accounted for in the schedule. Major Milestones: 1999 Complete last fencing project. 2000 Complete last seeding / planting Final assessment and project Wrap up.


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: Clearly explain what has been accomplished and what remains to be done.

Technical Issue: Demonstrate how the quantifiable objectives will be met.

Technical Issue: Clearly explain the monitoring plan and demonstrate why it is appropriate. Include juveniles as well as adults.

Technical Issue: Address how the objectives are realistic (e.g., reductions to temperatures, increases in over-hanging vegetation, ability to add water to the system). The methods proposed to achieve the objectives do not appear to be adequate (e.g., vegetation will not result in the expected channel width : depth ratio).

Technical Issue: Clearly describe how previous work has met the objectives and benefited fish production. Consider including a trend analysis.

Technical Issue: Demonstrate why this project is important in the context of the entire Deschutes River system. Anchor points (important vestige refuges) for endangered species may be in different areas of the subbasin and should be used as starting points for implementation.

Management Issue: Cost share aspects (30% BPA) of the proposal are good.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Did not respond adequately to technical criteria. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether technical criteria were met, or was complete but did not meet technical criteria.

Questionable management value. Proposal was either incomplete but did not provide adequate information to determine whether management criteria were met or complete but did not meet critical management criteria.


Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The goals to decrease water temperatures are well described, concrete, and ambitious. The proposal is not well organized. The basis for habitat targets is not given, and the monitoring is weak.