FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23079

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
23079 Narrative	Narrative
Memo from K. Weist (NPCC) to Council Members RE: Oregon Plan EMAP Presentation	Correspondence

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Implement Anadromous and Resident Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the Columbia River Basin
Proposal ID	23079
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Bruce McIntosh, Tom Nickelson, Rich Carmichael
Mailing address	28655 Highway 34 Corvallis, OR 97333
Phone / email	5417574262 / Bruce.McIntosh@orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Ed Bowles, ODFW Fish Division Head
Review cycle	FY 2001 High Priority
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	Implement systematic and statistically-based (EMAP protocols) for fish population and habitat monitoring in the Oregon portion of the Columbia Basin
Target species	All anadromous and resident salmonids

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.76	-120.22	Oregon Portion of Columbia Basin

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

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$2,406,519	$2,526,845	$2,653,187	$2,785,847

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: 35	$955,258
Fringe		$439,545
Supplies		$202,407
Travel		$144,700
Indirect	20.1%	$279,903
Capital	5 vehicles for OSP, office space, fish traps	$262,610
Other	training for OSP	$7,500
		$2,291,923

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$2,291,923
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$2,291,923
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
ODFW	Project Management, facilities	$572,981	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review

Recommendation:
N/A

Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This proposal for monitoring and evaluation of salmonid populations and their habitats does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
HP "B" M

Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This proposal probably presents an excellent opportunity, but as it would not provide any direct benefits to listed salmon, it does not fit in this solicitation. Technical reviewers suggested that ODFW should already be funding this monitoring and therefore, it raises an in lieu question. Population and habitat assessments are important for subbasin planning. Before an effort of this size in initiated, coordination should be facilitated between all states. This issue needs basin wide coordination.