FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23077
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 |
|---|---|
| 23077 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluation, Prioritization and Resolution of Fish Passage Impediments |
| Proposal ID | 23077 |
| Organization | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Ken Bierly |
| Mailing address | OWEB, 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301-1290 |
| Phone / email | 5039860182 / ken.bierly@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Geoff Huntington |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / |
| Short description | Evaluate, inventory, prioritize and plan for resolution of fish passage impediments in all subbasins of the Columbia Basin. Resolve impediments in priority subbasins to advance recovery of ESA-listed salmonids. |
| Target species | Snake River sockeye, fall chinook, spring/summer-run chinook and steelhead; Up. Columbia River chinook and steelhead; Lo. Columbia River chinook and steelhead; Mid. Columbia River steelhead; Up. Willamette River chinook and steelhead; Columbia River chum. |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Subcontractor | Inventory and Planning for 5 drainage basins @ $200,000 each | $1,000,000 |
| Other | Remove Priority Barriers for 5 drainage basins @ $2,000,000 each | $10,000,000 |
| $11,000,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $11,000,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $11,000,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| OWEB | cost share for barrier removal | $2,500,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal is focused on planning, conducting an inventory, and prioritizing potential sites to resolve passage impediments. This proposal does not identify specific sites to resolve passage barriers; consequently, it does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding.Comment:
This proposal appears to duplicate other screening inventory work. As a data collection effort, the proposal will not provide direct benefits to fish.