appendix c-3: restoration, acquisition, and combination ... · assessment of wood density and...

Appendix C-3: Restoration, Acquisition, and Combination Proposal

Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants l March 2019


List all related projects previously funded or reviewed by RCO:

Project # or Name Status

Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship to Current Proposal?

Asotin IMW Monitoring

In progress IMW is expected to continue until 2019; this proposal is to assist Federal funding of IMW monitoring

Charley and North Fork Restoration

Completed Part of the restoration phase of the IMW completed in 2014

South Fork Restoration

Completed Part of the restoration phase of the IMW completed in 2012

Submit this proposal as a PRISM attachment titled “Project Proposal.”

1. Project brief. Increase the density of wood in Asotin IMW treatment areas in Charley, North Fork, and South Fork Creeks.

2. Project location. Charley Creek rMKM 2.5-5.04-8, North Fork Asotin Creek rKM 0-2.54, and South Fork Asotin Creek rKM 1.3-5.04-8. These are the existing treatment sections of the Asotin Creek IMW.

3. Problem statement.

Some areas of the IMW treatments have lost wood and we seek to increase the wood density within these treatment areas so that the entire treatment area has wood densities that are at least 2-3 times higher than control areas. We also wish to increase the probability of overbank flow by adding more wood. The treatment sites have high densities of wood but there are patches where the wood has washed out. The reaches mostly have low density of wood and low habitat diversity except

Project Number 19-1499 Project Name Increasing wood densities in the Asotin IMW Sponsor Asotin County Conservation District



for the treatment areas. The three study watersheds are mostly in moderate geomorphic and riparian conditions and it is expected that with the current and proposed wood additions we can greatly improve the overall condition of the treatment areas by increasing instream diversity and floodplain connection. These areas are recovering after numerous large floods throughout the 1960’s – 1990’s.

4. List the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project.

Species Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult)

Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising)

Endangered Species Act Coverage (Y/N)

Steelhead all Unknown Y Bull trout All Unknown Y

5. Describe the limiting factors, and limiting life stages (by fish species) that your project expects to address.The limiting factors are low instream complexity, limited floodplain connection, low wood density. The treatments will benefit all life stages of both steelhead and bull trout because both species spawn in the study area, migrate through the study area, and rear in the study area.

6. Project goals and objectives. When answering the questions below please refer to Chapter 4 of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines for more information on goals and objectives.

What are the project goals?

To improve geomorphic function and habitat quality for rearing and spawning steelhead and bull trout.

What are the project objectives? Increase the overall density of large woody debris in the treatment sections of the IMW to at least 2-3 times the density of wood in the control areas. Another objective is to promote annual overbank flow by increasing the density of wood to force deposition (raising the bed) and slow the water to increase depth and connect to the floodplain.

Project objectives include:

Increase large wood density in treatment sections of the IMW by 2-3 times the density of control reaches.

Increase occurance of overbank flow by 25% across Asotin IMW project footprint by the year 2023.



Increase channel sinuosity by 0.1-0.3 (depending on the reach type) on average over the IMW project treatment footprint to reduce water velocities and support sediment aggradation to provide improved juvenile Steelhead rearing habitat.

Reconnect 1-4 side channels across in each treatment area of the IMW project treatment footprint by the year 2023.

Increase total active channel length to valley length (measured as a ratio) across IMW project treatment footprint by 0.3-0.5 by2023 year .

A. What are the assumptions and constraints that could impact whether you achieve your objectives? The IMW has been running for more than 10 years in these watersehds and we are assuming (and confirming) that the partners are still supportive of the IMW goals which are to test if wood additions can increase juvenile steelhead outmigrating populations.

7. Project details. Please answer the questions below and all pertinent supplemental questions at the end of the application form.

A. Provide a narrative description of the proposed project. Describe the specific project elements and explain how they will lead to the project’s objectives. Include relevant existing project documentation (if any) as attachments in PRISM.

We propose to add wood using a combination of post-assisted log structures (PALS; see schematics), tree felling, and grip-hoisting. We will conduct an assessment of wood density and location in each treatment section and identify areas where more wood is needed. We will then determine the most appropriate method to add wood based on site conditions and logistics. We have seen some excellent habitat creation and some overbank flow in the treatment areas and we will design the addition of wood to promote more habitat creation and overbank flow. See attached project memo for 2018.

B. Provide a scope of work and detailed list of project deliverables. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project tasks, who will be responsible for each, what the project deliverables will be, and a schedule for accomplishing them.



Project deliverables: A detailed design plan, addition of wood to treatment areas, and an as-built survey documenting the amount, structure type, and location of all wood additions.

C. Explain how the sponsor determined cost estimates.

We determined the costs based on the previous 10 years of work in the Asotin IMW.

D. Describe the design or acquisition alternatives considered to achieve the project’s objectives. We using the PALS because we used them before in the IMW treatments, but we are also using alternative methods including felling and grip-hoisting methods because these methods work well with the PALS. The PALS provide places to catch the unsecured wood and the unsecured wood is less expensive to install.

E. How have lessons learned from completed projects or monitoring studies informed this project? We anticipated in our Adaptive management plan that we may need to add more wood and our monitoring has confirmed that this is the case. We have tried some grip-hoisting and tree felling and had other people come and demonstrate to the SRSRB how effective these methods can be.

F. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the project or acquired land. This proposal is part of the long-term experiment which is being conducted all on WDFW property. We will be monitoring the effectiveness of the wood addition for several years to come.

8. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of later. We anticipate that the IMW will not be funded indefinitely and therefore we need to add wood now so we can test its effectiveness before the funding runs out to complete the IMW.

9. If the project is a part of a larger overall project or strategy, describe the goal of the overall strategy, explain individual sequencing steps, and which of these steps is included in this application for funding. This project is part of



the Asotin IMW and a critical piece of the experiment. We have attached IMW progress reports and the restoration and adaptive management plan that detail the goals and monitoring of the IMW. The proposal is only requesting assistance to maintain wood densities.

10. Describe the sponsor’s experience managing this type of project. We have worked on the IMW since 2008 and the coordinator and implementor of the IMW has experience throughout the western United States implementing this type of low-tech restoration http://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu .

11. List all landowner names. WDFW.

12. List project partners and their role and contribution to the project. WDFW and USFS provide assistance to the IMW monitoring, access to the land, wood for restoration, and overall support.

13. Stakeholder outreach. Discuss whether this project has any opposition or barriers to completion, besides funding. Describe the sponsor’s public outreach and feedback received. Are there any public safety concerns with the project? How will the sponsor address those concerns? We have presented numerous times to the public about the IMW and have only received positive comments. The ACCD is now implementing more of the low-tech restoration based on the preliminary results of the IMW and geomorphic assessments conducted in Asotin Creek.

Supplemental Questions

Restoration Project Supplemental Questions

Answer the following supplemental questions:

A. Will the sponsor complete, or already completed, a preliminary design, final design, and design report (per Appendix D) before construction? Choose an answer

i. We will complete a design as described above prior to construction.

B. Will a licensed professional engineer design the project? Choose an answer We implement low-tech restoration in the IMW – all structures are constructed by hand and no engineers are required.

C. If this project includes measures to stabilize an eroding stream bank, explain why bank stabilization there is necessary to accomplish habitat recovery. NA.



D. Describe the steps the sponsor will take to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species during construction and restoration. We always clean all our work equipment prior to going to the sites. All wood will be gathered on site or within the forest service upstream of the project area. We will review the sites after construction and seek assistance from WDFW if weed control is required.

i. How much water, if any, will be saved because of this project? By what methods will the sponsor calculate the amount of water conserved?

E. For acquisition projects intending to purchase multiple properties within an area, identify the target parcels and how the sponsor will prioritize the parcels.

Comments

Use this section to respond to the comments received after the initial site visits, and then again after submitting the final application.

Response to Site Visit Comments

Please describe how the sponsor responded to the review panel’s initial site visit comments. List each review panel comment and question and identify the response. Use this space to respond directly to the comments or refer to changes in the proposal.

Date: 6/5/2019 Project Site Visit? 0 Yes 1 No Review Panel Member(s): Powers, Toth

1. Recommended improvements to make this a technically sound project according to the SRFB’s criteria:

Provide a more detailed map of the proposed treatment area. The 4 KM treatment areas are shown on the work plan, but a more detailed site map showing existing and proposed area of higher LWD density would be helpful.

A map is not available at this time because we have yet to conduct the 2018 structure survey. Each year we conduct a survey to determine structure effectiveness and condition. We had relative high flows this year so we expect that some wood has moved. We should be completed a complete structure survey as part of our regular IMW monitoring by September 30th and can provide a map some time in October or early November 2019.

The project objectives mention promoting overland flow by causing aggradation of sediment in the bed. Is there habitat-based objective that can be a measure of aggradation or floodplain connection? For example, provide an estimate for the

Formatted: Superscript



expected increase in average channel bed elevation or estimate how many additional acres of floodplain or the percent increase in floodplain inundation that will occur during a 2-year flow. See page 98 of Manual 18 for examples of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) objectives. SMART objectives provide a measure for evaluating the success of the project in meeting its overall goal(s).

Yes there are several habitat-based objectives that we are monitoring:

· overbank-flow “yes” or “no” under each years discharge (overbank flow has been so rare a yes/no measure is the basic measure) based on visual surveys in the spring

· sinuosity (ratio of valley length to channel length) – most of the study streams are single channel and low sinuosity; we hope to see an increase in sinuosity from 1.1-1.2 to 1.3-1.4

· Number of active side channels and length of all channels relative to valley length – the ultimate measure of floodplain connection for the IMW will be whether portions of the single thread channel can be converted to mutilple threads. Two measures we are using are 1) number of reconnected side-channels and 2) total length of all channels in a reach (primary channel and side-channels) relative to the valley length. In work we have done for the Asotin Geomorphic Assessment we have identified goals specific to each stream and reach type. In Charley and South Fork Creek (more confined stream reach types) the goals are to increase the ratio from 1.1-1.2 to 1.4-1.5 and in the North Fork (partly confined reach types) the objective is to increase the ratio from 1.1-1.5 to 2.0-3.0.

· We have not calculated the available floodplain area but can provide an estimate for the potential increases in our 2019 annual report and update PRISM at that time.

Please see revised Objectives in in application above.

2. Missing Pre-application information.

3. General Comments:

Seems like a very low-cost restoration proposal given the high potential benefits which can be realized. The proposed work is critical to maintain wood densities in the treatment reaches of study.

4. Staff Comments:

See instructions below on how to respond the comments on this form.



Final draft applications and revised materials must be submitted in PRISM Online by July 9. Please refer to Manual 18 and the final application check list to ensure all required materials have been completed and submitted. Incomplete applications or applications not submitted by the LE final application due date will be ineligible to be considered for funding. Contact your LE Coordinator or RCO Grants Manager if you have any questions about completing the application.

PRISM Online Application

1) Please revise the project description. There is a lot of focus on the IMW and not much focus on salmon benefit. The IMW may be the guiding plans/designs, but we still need to understand the recovery problems. Revised on PRISM

2) Worksites and properties page: The project will require a different worksite for each stream where work will occur. From what I understand about the project, I would assume there should be 3 worksites. Revised in PRISM

3) Worksite and property descriptions: I realize that scientific method relies on the metric system, but all of the SRFB metrics are on the English measurements. For easier comprehension for all who read this information and consistency with other application materials, please keep metrics to miles, acres, etc. Revised in PRISM

4) Property details – be more brief to keep within character limitation. Don’t need to restate info that is in the worksite description. Also, you indicate that the landowner agreement will be in perpetuity. This is not appropriate. The ownership may be in perpetuity, but there is not an expectation for project work to be maintained in perpetuity. Revised in PRISM

5) Restoration Metrics: because this project is going back to a previously reported project area, there may need to be some adjustments to the treatment area metrics. I am going to have to talk with our funder to know the appropriate way to handle those metrics. I’ll let you know the outcome of that inquiry. Awaiting more info

6) Overall Project Metrics: RCO has strict guidance for when equipment may be eligible to be counted toward match. I am concerned that the equipment being used does not meet these requirements and could be ineligible. Even without this amount the project will still be above the minimum match requirement. From Manual 8 for Reimbursements (p 10):

If you use your organization’s equipment or tools, you may be allowed to claim some of the costs as a non-reimbursable amount. If the lower of the purchase price or fair market value of the equipment or tool is equal to at least $1,000, you may claim a use allowance. The use allowance is either an established rental rate or your own calculation, but that



may not exceed the current rental rate for equivalent equipment or tools in the project area.

Equipment purchased with RCO assistance is not allowed to be claimed as equipment use allowance.

Letter from SRSRB staff detailing post pounder eligibility attached in PRISM

When reporting use allowance, you must consider all past RCO projects where the equipment was used. The total use allowance reported on all RCO projects combined cannot exceed the lower of the purchase price or the fair market value of the equipment or tools. You must track the time and date of use, location of use, and identification information (make, model, serial number, description, etc.) to be provided upon request. For donated equipment or tool use information see below. … (p12)

Donated Equipment or Tool Use

Donated equipment or tool use occurs when a third party donates the use of equipment or tools with a replacement value of at least $1,000. The maximum rate allowable may not exceed the rental rate for comparable equipment or tools in the project area. The total amount reported to all RCO projects combined cannot exceed the replacement value of the equipment or tools.

Donated equipment or tool use does not include operator services. Operator services are reported separately.

7) Attachments: The cultural resources review materials provided to not demonstrate that the project areas, specifically on the NF and SF Asotin Rivers, have had previous review. The reviewed areas only include section 22, but not 9, 10, 15, 16, or 21. If you have other items (or RCO project numbers) where these areas have been reviewed, please provide that info. Otherwise, RCO will conduct cultural resources review for these areas. In speaking with Kay, it sounds like there was a problem with cultural resources review covering the entire previous project area. You will need to coordinate with WDFW



to get the remaining project areas reviewed prior to beginning work. You may want to consider adding some funds to the budget (and metrics) to cover this work.

Please discuss with Kay further – these areas were either reviewed for Cultural Resources or they were excluded from review. We have been over this numerous times and this issue has been resolved. Discussion ongoing for CR review. $7500 added to budget as contingency if CR is needed.

It would be helpful to provide a map that shows where current structures are already installed and where you expect to install structures for this project.

We have to complete a 2018 structure survey to determine where the LWD gaps are since we have had high flows this spring. The regular IMW monitoring of structures will be completed by September 30th 2019 and we can provide a map of areas with low LWD levels that will be targeted with the requested funds by late October or early November 2019.

Response to Post-Application Comments

Please describe how the sponsor responded to the review panel’s post-application comments. List each of the review panel’s comments and questions and identify the response. Use this space to respond directly to the comments or refer to changes in the proposal.

Formatted: Superscript

Lower Columbia Habitat Project Application Detailed Cost Estimate 2/1/2013

RESTORATION

OVERALL PROJECT GRANT REQUEST

Budget must account for all costs to

complete the project

Enter only the amount of the grant

request

Amount Amount Match in PRISMFunding not reported

in PRISM

Source (Grant, Cash, Materials, Labor, Volunteers, etc)

Match Type (federal, state, local)

Category (choose one) Task Description Qty RateMaterials Wood 50.00 100.00$ 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ Construction Installation of wood

(f )50.00 150.00$ 7,500$ 5,000$ 2,500$ -$ labor

Construction Installation of wood (restoration technician)

200.00 50.00$ 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ -$

Equipment and equipment use Restoration tools (ATV, chainsaws, griphoist, post-driver)

25.00 100.00$ 2,500$ 1,500$ 1,000$ -$ equipment

Cultural resources Cultural 3.00 2,500.00$ 7,500$ 7,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

STotal 32,500$ 29,000$ 3,500$ -$

Category Task Description Qty Rate Preliminary design Site selection (design) 35.00 100.00$ 3,500.00$ -$ 3,500$ -$ laborAdministrative Project management 35.00 100.00$ 3,500.00$ 3,500$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

STotal 7,000$ 3,500$ 3,500$ -$

Description Approved Rate Total Project Base Indirect 0.000% -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Indirect 0.000% -$ -$ -$ -$ $ -

STotal -$ -$ -$ $ -

GTOTAL 39,500$ 32,500$ 7,000$ -$ A&E maximum allowed in PRISM $ 9,750.00 PRISM Project Total $ 39,500

A&E validation 2,750 RCO Percentage Match Percentage82.28% 17.72%

AA&E Budget Check

MATCH

Construction

Administrative, Architechtural & Engineering

Indirect Costs

The Grant Request and Match should equal the total project cost and Budget Check cell should be 0. Sponsors must account for all sources and types of match need to complete the project.

See SRFB Manual 5 for additional information regarding allowable costs.

https://www.rco.wa.gov/documents/manuals&forms/Manual_5.pdf

April 5, 2019

Memo: Intensively Monitored Watershed Certification – Increase wood densities in Asotin IMW restoration, Project 19-1499

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) staff have worked with the project sponsor, the Asotin

County Conservation District, and the coordinator of the Asotin IMW, Eco Logical Research Inc., to

develop the Increase wood densities in Asotin IMW restoration project proposal. The location and methods

for the project were developed by and are a direct recommendation from the IMW implementation team for

the continuation of the IMW itself.

Therefore, the SRSRB certifies that to our knowledge the proposed project contributes to and will not

negatively affect ongoing data collection and salmon restoration efforts within the Asotin IMW.

Furthermore, the lead project scientist, Steve Bennett, has confirmed with the project statistician that this

project will not affect the IMW monitoring project.

John Foltz

Executive Director

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board

410 B East Main phone: 509.382.4115 Dayton, WA 99328 www.snakeriverboard.org

Appendix G: Project Partner Contribution Form


Appendix G: Project Partner Contribution Form

Project Partner: Eco Logical Research, Inc.

Partner Address: PO Box 706, Providence Utah 84322

Contact Person

x Mr. Ms. Title: Project Coordinator

First Name: Stephen Last Name: Bennett

Mailing Address: same as above

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Description of contribution to project:

Providing design and restoration crews for the Asotin Creek Intensively Monitored Watersehd addition of wood to maintain high wood densities in treatment sections.

Estimated value to be contributed: $7,000

April, 3, 2019

Partner’s signature Date

See page 3 and 4 for definitions and an indirect example

1. Indirect costs

Indirect costs are costs that are not directly accountable to a cost object, such as a particular project. Indirect costs include administrative and personnel costs.

Our organization (Choose one)

Does not wish to charge any indirect rate for this RCO subgrant for any RCO subaward. (PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION 4.)

Has an indirect rate approved by a federal agency

Uses a de minimus rate (10% of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC)) as defined by 2 CFR 200.414 (f) - eligible for non-profits and private individuals only. (For a definition of MTDC, see 2 CFR 200.68)

Has an indirect rate negotiated between the pass-through entity (RCO) and our organization.

2 Indirect rate

Our organization's indirect rate (percent) is

Our organization's indirect base is

Our organization's indirect rate was approved by

The effective dates of indirect rate is Start Date End Date

Please include a copy of your organization's approved indirect cost rate agreement

** If your indirect rate changes, please update this form and send the form and the updated indirect cost rate agreement to RCO (see page 2).

3. Indirect rate and costs - For each RCO agreement

RCO# RCO# RCO# Indirect rate applied RCO#

Total ($) direct cost base for this RCO grant

Projected indirect charge ($)

Other non-base, non-indirect costs ($)

Total ($) (this should equal the RCO agreement total)

(If there are more than four RCO grants, please complete an additional sheet)

4. Audit information

Year Audit Type Findings

Please summarize the past three (3) years of audits that your organization has received. Specify the audit types. List all of the findings and

address the resolution of the finding.

RCO Fiscal Data Collection Sheet - Indirect, Audit and Fiscal InformationRCO is collecting additional fiscal information on every federal pass-through grant that is awarded. This additional information is required to be

in compliance with Part 200 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (new Omni-

Circular). This information will help RCO to understand the indirect cost information for each grant and the financial history of each sponsor. If

there are questions about this information RCO will contact sponsors directly.

Year

Year

Audit Type

Audit Type

Findings

Findings

Sponsor Name:

Sponsor Data Universal Numbering System (D & B Number):

Sponsor Date Prepared:

Sponsor Approved for submission by:

Sponsor Contact Name:

Sponsor Contact Person's Phone Number:

1

Fiscal Information Detail Sheet -- Indirect rate , fiscal, and audit information

RCO is collecting additional fiscal information on every federal pass-through grant that is awarded. This additional information is required to

be in compliance with Part 200 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (new Omni-

Circular). This information will help RCO to understand the indirect cost information for each grant and the financial history of each sponsor. If

there are questions about this information RCO will contact sponsors directly.

Please summarize any audits you expect your organization to complete over the next three (3) years.

5. Financial information

Please identify any changes to key staff positions in your organization in the past year.

Version: 08/17/2015

Please return via email to: [email protected] there are questions about this form, please contact Mark Jarasitis at (360) 902-3006.

Please identify any substantial changes in your organizations accounting, procurement, payroll or other administrative systems that have

occurred in the past year.

Please identify your organizations accounting staff, the nature of the staff (employees, contractors, volunteers) and outline the accounting

experience for each staff member. If staff have received certifications such as CPA, CGFM, please include that information.

2

mailto:[email protected]

Definitions and Example

The Omni Circular –the federal law covering the administrative requirements, cost principles and audit

requirements for federal awards. Refer to Title 2: Grants and Agreements, Part 200 – Uniform

Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

Dun & Bradstreet Number – also known as a D&B number or D-U-N-S number – a unique nine digit

identification number for each physical location of your business. For more information or to register

see www.dnb.com and click on “D-U-N-S Number”. This is the unique identifier required to track all

sub-awards. The DUNS acronym stands for Data Universal Numbering System.

Indirect Cost – Costs incurred for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective, and not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved (2 CFR 200.56).

Indirect Rate – device for determining fairly and expeditiously the proportion of general (non-

direct) expenses that each project will bear. It is the ratio between the total indirect costs of a

sponsor and some equitable direct cost base.

Direct Base – costs identified that provide the basis for applying the indirect costs. Bases can vary

from organization to organization. Some common bases are salary and fringe, and modified total

direct costs.

MTDC Base – Modified Total Direct Costs – means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe

benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each sub-award

(regardless of the period of performance of the sub-awards under the award). MTDC excludes

equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships

and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each sub-award in excess of $25,000. See

section 200.68 of the Omni Circular.

10% De Minimus cost rate – any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost

rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200—States and Local

Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis

rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely. See section 200.414,

(f) of the Omni Circular.

Costs usually included as indirect costs – Utilities, general supplies, administrative expenses (accounting

department, IT department, personnel department). If indirect costs are charged, RCO expects to not

see any other general administrative costs charged to the grant.

3

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6fe24c76004f565cdfd8cef80053ab59&node=pt2.1.200&rgn=div5

http://www.dnb.com/

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6fe24c76004f565cdfd8cef80053ab59&node=pt2.1.200&rgn=div5#se2.1.200_168




Indirect Example

The example below illustrates a comparison of two different indirect rates.

Indirect Cost Pool Fiscal Year 1

Indirect Salaries 40,000

Indirect Salary Benefits 15,000

Facility Rental Costs 18,000

Utilities 3,500

Supplies 4,000

Total Indirect Costs 80,500 (A)

Direct Base

Direct Labor Costs + Benefits 275,000 (B)

Other Direct Costs 100,000

Total Direct Costs 375,000 (C)

Indirect Rates

EX 1- Indirect Rate based on Direct Labor 29.27% (A/B)

EX 2 - Indirect Rate based on Total Direct Costs 21.47% (A/C)

The first rate is 29.27%. The indirect costs of $80,500 is recovered by charging 29.27% of each dollar

charged for direct labor costs (expected to be $275,000).

The second rate illustrates a rate of 21.47%. The same indirect costs of $80,500 are recovered by

charging 21.47% of each dollar charged for total direct costs (expected to be $375,000).

Please note, while the rates are different, so are the bases. One rate has costs spread over a smaller

base, this one has the higher rate. It is the opposite for the other rate. The net impact is the same,

$80,500 of indirect costs will be recovered. It is up to the organizations to determine how to structure

their indirect rates.

4

appendix c-3: restoration, acquisition, and combination ... · assessment of wood density and...

Documents