FY 1999 proposal 9061

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
9061 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	River Wetlands Restoration and Evaluation Program
Proposal ID	9061
Organization	USDA Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (USFS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Virginia Kelly
Mailing address	902 Wasco Ave, Suite 200 Hood River, OR 97031
Phone / email	5413862333 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Lower Columbia / Sandy
Short description	Restore 200 acres of wetland and associated upland habitat at Sandy River Delta. Restoration would be part of a series of large scale Lower Columbia River wetlands GIS mapping, habitat restoration, and evaluation and monitoring experiments.
Target species

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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost
Subcontractor		$125,000
		$125,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$125,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$125,000
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Need to describe the specific measurable objectives, and provide more detail on how this work will achieve the expected restoration results.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The study's principal attributes are its strong cost-sharing component, its linkage with other agencies and institutions, and its role in wildlife mitigation. The ISRP review team comments, however, that the proposal is vague on methodology, does not adequately describe fish benefits, and offers overly succinct objectives and tasks. Concluding that work already appears to be in progress without Bonneville Power Administration funding, reviewers ask whether the U. S. Forest Service or BPA should properly fund this study of a refuge administered by USFS.