FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23076

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
23076 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Complete Watershed Assessments in the Columbia Plateau
Proposal ID	23076
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 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Geoff Huntington
Review cycle	FY 2001 High Priority
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	Prioritize, solicit and contract for uniform watershed assessments to cover the primary areas of private lands in the Columbia Plateau and adjacent Columbia subbasins in Oregon using the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual to enable restoration actions.
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
45.02	-119.55	Columbia Plateau in Oregon

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: 1.0	$37,740
Supplies		$5,000
Travel		$5,000
Indirect	OPE @ 40%	$15,096
Subcontractor	Assessment Contracting 50 @ $30,000	$1,500,000
Other	Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, Wildlife Habitat Chapter Contracting	$40,000
		$1,602,836

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$1,602,836
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$1,602,836
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
OWEB	contracting funds	$500,000	cash

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 to conduct watershed assessments 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" S

Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This proposal appears to be duplicative of the NPPC assessment. It is probably an excellent opportunity, but does not meet the current High Priority criteria.