FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23057
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 |
|---|---|
| 23057 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhance Instream Flows and Fish Habitat for 2001 Irrigation Season |
| Proposal ID | 23057 |
| Organization | Oregon Water Trust (OWT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Cheyenne Chapman |
| Mailing address | 111 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 404 Portland, OR 97204 |
| Phone / email | 5032269055 / cheyenne@owt.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Andrew Purkey, Executive Director |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / |
| Short description | Enhance instream flows in targeted tributaries in selected provinces through adding second project manager to Oregon Water Trust staff to help negotiate deals that restore streamflows and improve fish habitat for the 2001 irrigation season. |
| Target species | spring chinook, summer and winter steelhead and bull trout |
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 FTE limited duration position - 9 months | $30,000 |
| Fringe | Estimated at 6.5% of salaries | $2,000 |
| Supplies | Paper, reproduction costs, distribution of materials, laptop computer and cell phone for field work | $2,500 |
| Travel | Travel to and from and throughout subbasins | $3,500 |
| Indirect | Administrative Allocation & Overhead | $9,000 |
| Subcontractor | Certified Water Rights Examiner | $3,500 |
| Other | Publication Fees | $500 |
| $51,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $51,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $51,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon Water Resources Department | Monitoring by Watermasters | $1,500 | in-kind |
| Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife | Monitoring by District Fish Biologists | $1,500 | in-kind |
| Private Foundations | Operational Funding/Overhead | $5,000 | cash |
| Corporations and Individual Donors | Operational Funding/Overhead | $2,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This was a difficult proposal for the reviewers to evaluate, because the track record of the organization, the low cost, and the potential benefit look good. It is for a staff position to acquire water rights. This proposal differs from the OWRD in that the proposal is focused on specific streams, with specific goals for each stream reach. It appears some of the transactions are in hand, but most appear to be goals. The lack of specificity on the exact deals and rights that would be acquired kept the ISRP from endorsing this project under this solicitation.Comment:
Most of the proposed funding would go for hiring staff with limited purchase of water rights. The real benefits come from other sources of funding. Why does the proposed position need to be funded in advance of the "Rolling Review?"