FY 1999 proposal 199303000
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Buck Hollow Watershed Enhancement |
| Proposal ID | 199303000 |
| Organization | Wasco County Soil and Water Conservation District (WCSWCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ron Graves |
| Mailing address | 2325 River Road, Suite 3 The Dalles, OR 97058 |
| Phone / email | 5412966178 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Deschutes |
| Short description | Enhance 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
| 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 |
|
$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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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.