FY 2001 Action Plan proposal 26022
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 |
|---|---|
| 26022 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Sauvie Island Wildlife Area Westside Pump Fish Screens |
| Proposal ID | 26022 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mark A. Nebeker |
| Mailing address | 18330 NW Sauvie Island Rd. Portland, OR 97231 |
| Phone / email | 5036213488 / mark.a.nebeker@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Mark A. Nebeker |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Screen two water pumps to protect ESA fish species |
| Target species | chinook salmon and steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.7494 | -122.8133 | Pump site on Gilbert River near Seal Lake |
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 |
|---|
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 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Screen Westside Pumps | same | 2 | $15,000 |
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3 | $4,060 |
| Fringe | $2,940 | |
| Supplies | Screens, Pump, and Parts | $8,000 |
| $15,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $15,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $15,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| ODFW | Installation of Screens | $2,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Not fundable. Inadequate proposal. Biologically, this project may be worth implementing, however the proposal is incomplete and does not include the necessary information to meet the solicitation criteria. No map is provided showing the area and the pump stations proposed for screening. No specific discussion of the pros and cons of the proposed action is provided. No discussion is presented that allows the reviewer to understand the magnitude of the potential benefits to ESA stocks of the proposed actions. The proposed activities would occur below the dams and the proposal does not demonstrate that there would be benefits to species that are impacted by this year's power emergency operation. Rather, the proposal's scope is focused on addressing adverse effects of drought conditions on Sauvie Island wetlands.