FY 2000 proposal 199607000
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199607000 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Mckenzie River Focus Watershed Coordination |
| Proposal ID | 199607000 |
| Organization | McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | John Runyon, Watershed Coordinator |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 53 Springfield, OR 97477 |
| Phone / email | 5417415235 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Continue administration of McKenzie Focus Watershed for coordinated planning, assessment, monitoring, and fish and wildlife enhancement projects |
| Target species | Native anadromous fish: spring chinook salmon Resident fish: bull trout, Oregon chub, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and others Wildlife: Peregrine falcon, Northern spotted owl, Western pond turtle, wolverine, Townsend's big-eared, spotted frog |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1996 | Completed Techical Report for Water Quality and Fish & Wildlife Habitat |
| Completed Action Plan for Water Quality and Fish & Wildlife Habitat | |
| Implemented ambient water-quality monitoring | |
| 1997 | Initiated collaboration with Spring Chinook Working Group and began communicating with Upper Willamette Bull Trout Working Group to address critical fish habitat issues |
| Initiated collaboration with Habitat Conservation and Land Acquisition Working Group to plan and implement habitat acquisitions | |
| Convened Watershed Health Forum, which encouraged information sharing among scientists, natural resource managers, and the public | |
| 1998 | Implemented storm event monitoring |
| Implemented macroinvertebrate monitoring | |
| Council Coordinator selected as board member of the Willamette Basin Restoration Initiative, to represent Willamette Basin watershed councils |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9206800 | Implementation of Willamette Basin Mitigation Program--Wildlife | Targets acquisition of critical fish and wildlife habitat in the Upper Willamette Basin, and specifically in the McKenzie Watershed |
| 9405300 | Bull Trout Assessment - Willamette/McKenzie | Monitors the distribution, population trends, and habitat use of bull trout populations in the Upper Willamette Basin |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Salary for Coordinator (0.5 FTE), Assistant Coodinator (1.0 FTE), and Education Coordinator (0.5 FTE | $58,774 |
| Fringe | Payroll expenses and benefits for Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator | $16,960 |
| Supplies | Office equipment, supplies, service, and public outreach materials | $13,500 |
| Operating | Facility rent, utilities, communications, and insurance | $7,766 |
| Travel | Mileage, hotels, per diem | $6,000 |
| Other | Professional services | $2,000 |
| $105,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $105,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $105,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | Cash match | $105,000 | unknown |
| Eugene Water & Electric Board | Cash match | $32,000 | unknown |
| City of Eugene | Cash match | $10,000 | unknown |
| City of Springfield | Cash match | $5,000 | unknown |
| Springfield Utility Board | Cash match | $6,000 | unknown |
| Bureau of Land Management | Cash match | $6,000 | unknown |
| U.S. Forest Service | Cash match | $3,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Inadequate funding of the proposed McKenzie watershed assessment and project prioritizations may cause delays or inefficiencies in the prioritization, planning, and implementation of coordinated fish and wildlife habitat projects
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund with high priority. Also, this project is recommended for a multi-year review cycle with comprehensive review in three years.Comments: This is one of only a few proposals that directly address habitat criteria. There appears to be good cooperation and significant cost sharing by other groups and entities in the McKenzie River Basin. The proposal excels in relating the importance of linking habitats within a watershed as well as human organizations, and it generally provides a sound basis for evaluation. It is somewhat ominous, however, to consider the potential cost of funding this level of activity over the entire Columbia Basin. Among shortcomings, the proposal notes that the 20-member McKenzie Watershed Council is developing a long-term funding plan, but that defies evaluation in the absence of an accounting of what is involved, prospects for success, when it is to be implemented, etc.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Greater detail is invited about particular assessment methods to be used to prioritize areas for protection and restoration. It is difficult to establish from the proposal that efforts to plan, prioritize, coordinate, implement and educate will be properly focused.
Numerous tasks are outlined in the Methods section (Pages 15-16), but little indication of the prospects of success. For example, one task (to monitor for water quality, quantity and macroinvertebrates) neglects to say where, at how many sites, how frequently, and using what techniques. Under Objective No. 4, authors should identify how many workshops, field visits and demonstration projects are contemplated.
A list of critically related projects (Section 3) is incomplete, and the text supplies little detail about those projects. Reviewers are left with an incomplete understanding of the relationship of the current proposal to others being submitted by the McKenzie Watershed Council to BPA. Among outreach efforts, the proposal offers a variety of workshops, field visits and demonstration projects, but details are sorely lacking: Where, when, how many, with what goals and objectives and what prospects for success?
Comment:
Comment:
#6-ongoing funding needed.Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Well written proposal.Project provides needed coordination within the basin.
Include a mechanism that shows how coordination is providing benefits to fish and wildlife.
Include a clearly developed internal and external performance plan to monitor and evaluate the progress and success of coordination activities.
Good range of cost-share partners.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $127,133 | $127,133 | $127,133 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website