Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Restore Chinook Watershed |
| Proposal ID | 9123 |
| Organization | Sea Resources |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Brent Davies |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 187 Chinook, WA 98614 |
| Phone / email | 3607778229 / brentd@u.washington.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Chinook |
| Short description | Implement Chinook Watershed Restoration Plan using students guided by a team of scientists and wetland restoration experts. |
| 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 |
Executive director, salmon biologist, restoration coordinator, genetics consultant |
$92,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$21,250 |
| Supplies |
cables and assoc gear for snorkel counts, scales, dissolved oxygen probe coded-wire tagger |
$21,500 |
| Operating |
publications printing, mapping, life-history library |
$30,000 |
| Capital |
building improvements, pond naturalization, smolt trap |
$110,000 |
| Tag |
500,000 |
$25,000 |
| Travel |
|
$2,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$15,000 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$17,500 |
| $334,750 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $334,750 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $334,750 |
| 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: extreme weather conditions
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: Check accuracy of 500,000 PIT tags for $25,000.Management Issue: Specify what hatchery improvements are needed and explain why and how upgrades to the hatchery will help accomplish the goal of using the hatchery fish for natural production supplementation. Explain if other alternatives were considered, such as phasing out the hatchery.
Technical Issue: Clearly define the tangible objectives, including how the variety of tasks (e.g., develop watershed assessment, hatchery management plan for natural production supplementation, education) are tied together in coherent manner, including specific expected results and milestones, so that an assessment of their feasibility can be made.
Technical Issue: Need a plan that specifies how the expected results will be monitored to determine if the objectives are being achieved.
Technical Issue: Need more detail on the budget.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
urgent. Proposed activities would not produce significant near-term survival improvement nor risk a lost opportunity within the next 1-3 years.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.
Cost issues. Proposed budget and/or out-year costs were unknown or judged to be high in relation to the cost of similar projects or activities.
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This project is a test of the "normative" concept in a lower Columbia River tributary without a dam. The proposal is well presented, logical and particularly appealing as it has many different interfaces. It integrates various aspects of biology, ecology, and aquaculture. It includes links to higher education, high school and various interest groups from the local community. It has an outreach educational program designed to initiate long-term changes in rural community values coincident with the ecosystem restoration. However, the proposal lacks details of methods, current status, and monitoring and evaluation for objectives and tasks. The references cited are sound. The budget should be scrutinized for justification of publications and facilities improvement costs.