Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Subbasin Planning Coordinator for Oregon |
| Proposal ID | 25063 |
| Organization | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Kenneth F. Bierly |
| Mailing address | 775 Summer St. NE, Suite 360 Salem, OR 97301-1290 |
| Phone / email | 5039860182 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Geoff Huntington |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Columbia |
| Short description | This project provides a state coordinator to integrate subbasin planning with the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. |
| Target species | chinook, steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.22 |
-119.13 |
Columbia Lower Middle subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Action 154 |
NMFS |
BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| All Objectives |
|
1.0 |
$100,225 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $100,225 | $100,225 | $100,225 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1.0 |
$53,600 |
| Fringe |
OPE @ 40% |
$21,400 |
| Supplies |
|
$5,000 |
| Travel |
|
$15,500 |
| Indirect |
rent & phone |
$4,725 |
| $100,225 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $100,225 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $100,225 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $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.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund. No response is warranted. This is a token placeholder proposal. There should be an integration of effort at the state level for subbasin planning. An entity should be responsible for developing state priorities and report to and be funded by the Governor. The proposal did not give enough information to justify this position, although increased coordination would likely benefit the subbasin planning effort.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Aug 3, 2001
Comment:
This project should be funded through the NWPPC subbasin planning efforts.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 10, 2001
Comment:
Do not fund. No response is warranted. This is a token placeholder proposal. There should be an integration of effort at the state level for subbasin planning. An entity should be responsible for developing state priorities and report to and be funded by the Governor. The proposal did not give enough information to justify this position, although increased coordination would likely benefit the subbasin planning effort.
Recommendation:
Date:
Oct 1, 2001
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect effect since project would fund Oregon State Subbasin Planning Coordinator to represent state in NWPPC subbasin planning effort.Comments
Project proposes to develop a recovery strategy based on Oregon Plan. Would prefer that they coordinate with the All-H and TRT strategy and products. Unclear how much authority coordinator would have when representing state recovery efforts.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Recommendation:
Rank C
Date:
Oct 16, 2001
Comment:
This project provides a state coordinator to integrate subbasin planning with the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The extent to which BPA should support local and state infrastructure needs to be explored further; therefore, this proposal should be deferred.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jan 3, 2002
Comment: