FY 1999 proposal 199401700
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Idaho Model Watershed Habitat Projects |
| Proposal ID | 199401700 |
| Organization | Lemhi and Custer Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jude Trapani |
| Mailing address | 206 Van Dreff St. Salmon, ID 83467 |
| Phone / email | 2087566322 / mws@dmi.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | To protect, enhance and restore anadromous and resident fish habitat and achieve and maintain a balance between resource protection and resource use on a holistic watershed management basis. |
| Target species | Chinook Salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytsch
Steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss |
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 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 |
|
$19,530 |
| Fringe |
|
$1,289 |
| Supplies |
|
$308,648 |
| Travel |
|
$1,485 |
| Indirect |
|
$19,048 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$15,000 |
| Other |
|
$35,000 |
| $400,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $400,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $400,000 |
| 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: Most of our projects require facilitating cooperation with a various federal and state agencies and private landowners. The project scope often changes with the development of consensus. Other constraints involve weather and availability of materials.
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 describe the methods and materials. Why is the rock needed?Technical Issue: Clearly describe how the methods will accomplish the objectives.
Technical Issue: Provide enough detail to allow an evaluation of whether the funding requested is adequate to meet the objectives.
Technical Issue: Explain why $350,000 to fence 6 miles of stream is not excessive.
Technical Issue: Confusion about the Baker Ranch – the Baker's appear to want an easement, but didn't request funding for this – please explain.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Adequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The original proposal was poor on technical background. It described good general objectives, but it was not clear what methods would be used to achieve these objectives. The revised proposal gives a much clearer explanation of how watershed assessment was used to establish restoration priorities and monitoring.
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,135,632 |
$1,135,632 |
$1,135,632 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website