Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Spring Chinook Life History-habitat Relationships in the McKenzie |
| Proposal ID | 9038 |
| 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 | Collect information, make recommendations that allow fish/land managers and watershed councils to secure present population of wild spring chinook in McKenzie R. by protecting habitat, and increasing chinook production by improving habitat/environment. |
| 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 |
|
$50,760 |
| Fringe |
|
$22,844 |
| Supplies |
|
$14,620 |
| Capital |
|
$41,500 |
| Tag |
|
$20,300 |
| Travel |
|
$6,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$26,226 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$0 |
| $182,250 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $182,250 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $182,250 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
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 this project assists the other larger (ODFW) project that is referenced in the proposal?Technical Issue: Explain how this work relates to the development of the watershed assessment also being conducted by the MFWC, and which of the proposed work has been done or is being done by other projects.
Technical Issue: Need a better description on how the information will be used (e.g., spawning and holding areas) to get fish benefits. Explain how fish and wildlife will benefit.
Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Pending
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This well-written proposal points to an evaluation of spring chinook life history and the species' relationship to its habitat in the McKenzie River watershed. ISRP reviewers state that objectives and tasks seem well matched, and the need to monitor habitat for adult spawning and rearing is persuasively described. Contrarily, the objectives of tagging are not clearly described, and the proposed sampling size may not yield adequate data. Further, reviewers say it is unclear how the sponsors intend to compare different life history types and smolt-to-adult survival.