FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23079
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 |
---|---|
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.
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.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.