Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire Fish and Wildlife Habitat in the McKenzie Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 9037 |
| Organization | McKenzie Focus Watershed Council |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | John Runyon, Coordinator |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1025 Corvallis, OR 97330 |
| Phone / email | 5417580947 / runyon@proaxis.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Protect and restore McKenzie River pool habitat by acquiring a key property. The project will maintain and improve watershed-wide connectivity and habitat for wildlife and resident fish, and rearing habitat for spring chinook. |
| 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 |
|---|
| Capital |
|
$220,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$11,500 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$10,000 |
| $241,500 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $241,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $241,500 |
| 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: Difficult to determine the length of the land purchase negotiation process.
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: Explain how the benefits from these 20 acres relate to the total benefits for the McKenzie River. Technical Issue: Additional information is needed regarding the existing condition of the gravel pit - how deep it is, whether it is active.
Technical Issue: Explain if downstream sediment transfer, upstream headcuts, and hazardous waste potential have been evaluated with specific reference cited. Need to describe specific expected benefits: how will fish benefits be achieved by purchasing this land?
Technical Issue: Concerns whether the per-acre cost ($250,000 for 20 acres) is appropriate to achieve the objectives.
Management Issue: Describe if other less-costly alternatives to achieving the objectives were considered.
Technical Issue: Need more specific detail on how the results will be monitoring to determine if the results are as expected.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Pending
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
ISRP reviewers state that the proposal adequately describes present conditions of the habitat but does not fully relate how sponsors intend restoration or describe their intended monitoring effort. Mention of earlier projects is commended, as well as the proposal's description of its relationship to a future watershed assessment. More details would enhance the proposal, including some discussion of who should properly pay for watershed projects.