Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Wind River Ecosystem Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 9154 |
| Organization | Underwood Conservation District (UCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Steve Stampfli |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 96 White Salmon, WA 98672 |
| Phone / email | 5094931936 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Wind |
| Short description | Restore the ecosystem health of the Wind River subbassin with an immediate focus on recovery of steelhead production. |
| 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 |
|---|
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 |
FY 99 in-kind contributions = $87,679 |
$242,083 |
| Fringe |
FY 99 in-kind contributions = $21,904 |
$80,694 |
| Supplies |
FY 99 in-kind contributions = $17,390 |
$41,460 |
| Operating |
In addition, 7% of the above personnel costs are for O&M |
$10,400 |
| Capital |
FY 99 in-kind contributions = $34,000 |
$37,000 |
| Travel |
FY 99 in-kind contributions = $13,403 |
$8,570 |
| Indirect |
|
$120,567 |
| Subcontractor |
USDA Forest Service (USFS); Yakama Indian Nation-(In-kind funds contribution only) (YIN); USGS, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS); USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Program Office (USFWS); Washington Dept. of Natural Resources (WDNR); Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
$128,375 |
| $669,149 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $669,149 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $669,149 |
| 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: Potential constraints include: 1) obtaining sampling permits, and 2) obtaining permission to access private lands.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Criteria 1: Technical Criteria - Yes: This is primarily a watershed proposal and should be reviewed as such. The criteria used are insufficient to fully evaluate watershed proposal.
Criteria 2: Objectives Criteria - Yes
Criteria 3: Milestones Criteria - Yes
Criteria 4: Resources Criteria - Yes:
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Hold at FY98 funding level for now
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
The ISRP reviewers praise the proposal as well-written, even if products (discussed on page 11 of the proposal) do not appear to match all objectives. The reviewers suggest products should be expressed in terms of the expected biological improvements.