FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23069
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 |
|---|---|
| 23069 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Apply for Additional In-stream Water Rights |
| Proposal ID | 23069 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Rick Kepler |
| Mailing address | PO Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 |
| Phone / email | 5038725255 / Rick.J.Kepler@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Rick Kepler |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Prioritize streams where data currently exists to determine in-stream flow needs and apply for instream water rights in those streams where instream water right do not currently exist. |
| Target species | Will benefit all listed and resident salmonid species depending on which are present in the stream where a instream water right is acquired. |
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 |
|---|
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 |
|---|
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: 1 | $35,091 |
| Supplies | $4,397 | |
| Travel | $10,000 | |
| Indirect | 20.1% | $10,954 |
| Capital | $5,000 | |
| $65,442 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $65,442 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $65,442 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $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.
Comment:
This proposal for infrastructure does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding. The project seems worthwhile, but the proposal is inadequate and does not assure that streams with ESA listed species will be the only focus. This proposal is weak in its presentation, leaving many questions unanswered. It does not make a convincing case for funding. Why is the current instream water right program coordinator not doing the tasks described in the proposal? These seem basic to a water rights program. How would streams be prioritized? What data are available? Duties of the staff person are not well described.Comment:
Proposal will not provide direct benefits. There appear to be in lieu issues with this proposal.