FY 1999 proposal 9037

Additional documents

TitleType
9037 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAcquire Fish and Wildlife Habitat in the McKenzie Watershed
Proposal ID9037
OrganizationMcKenzie Focus Watershed Council
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn Runyon, Coordinator
Mailing addressP.O. Box 1025 Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone / email5417580947 / runyon@proaxis.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Willamette
Short descriptionProtect 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
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.