FY 2000 proposal 20113
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 |
|---|---|
| 20113 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20113 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, South Fork Crooked River |
| Proposal ID | 20113 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Susan P. Barnes |
| Mailing address | 2501 SW First Ave, P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97217 |
| Phone / email | 5038725260 / susan.p.barnes@state.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Deschutes |
| Short description | Maintain enhanced wetland, shrub-steppe, and riverine/riparian habitats on a 2,000-acre eased property on the South Fork of the Crooked River |
| Target species | Lesser scaup, great blue heron, Canada goose, spotted sandpiper, yellow warbler, black-capped chickadee, western meadowlark, sage grouse, mink, and mule deer |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Created a list of potential wildlife mitigation projects throughout Oregon |
| 1997 | Compiled more comprehensive prioritized list of mitigation sites; identified South Fork Crooked River area as priority area |
| 1998 | FY99 proposal for $20,000 to ease and enhance 2,000-acre parcel was approved and recommended |
| 1998 | Began landowner negotiations for conservation easement of parcel along the South Fork Crooked River |
| 1998 | Developed partnerships with Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, BLM, and The Nature Conservancy to help facilitate project objectives |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | Umbrella project; explains intent for mitigation planning, coordination, and implementation by Oregon wildlife managers within Oregon. Identifies priority projects with specific budgets that will help meet mitigation objectives. |
| 0 | ODFW Deschutes Subbasin Umbrella Proposal | Umbrella project; explains management intent for anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in the Deschutes River Subbasin. |
| 9565 | Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Using GAP Anaylsis | A mitigation planning tool used to analyze and rank potential mitigation projects within the basin. |
| 9284 | Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project | A mitigation planning tool that includes methods for assembling a trust agreement and a list of potential mitigation projects. |
| 9206800 | Implementation of Willamette Basin Mitigation Program - Wildlife | A mitigation proposal focusing on land acquisition/easement, enhancement, and management of lands in the Willamette Basin. Similar in function as Coalition's umbrella project. |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Trout Creek Canyon | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Logan Valley | ||
| 9140 | Acquisition of Pine Creek Ranch | |
| 20140 | Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Additions | |
| Juniper Canyon and Columbia Gorge Wildlife Mitigation Project | ||
| 20112 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Wenaha WMA Additions | |
| 20115 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Irrigon WMA Additions | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ruthton Point (Mitchell Point) | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Multnomah Channel | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, E.E. Wilson WMA Additions | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, McKenzie River Islands | ||
| 20114 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Additions | |
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | |
| 20134 | Acquire Oxbow Ranch - Middle Fork John Day | |
| 20116 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | for 0.125 FTE | $5,799 |
| Fringe | @38% | $2,204 |
| Supplies | fence, weed control, sign, and other materials | $1,000 |
| Operating | included in personnel line item | $0 |
| Travel | $500 | |
| Indirect | @35.5% | $3,374 |
| Other | M&E costs included in personnel line item | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Crook Co. Weed Control (O&M) | $1,000 |
| $13,877 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $13,877 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $13,877 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| undetermined at this time | Opportunities will be investigated | $0 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Difficult landowner negotiation efforts and inadequate or untimely fund acquisition could delay project implementation. Severe weather conditions could delay field activities.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund (medium priority).Comments: This was a well-written proposal, especially the justification. The narrative is well laid out and convincing. The objectives and tasks seem reasonable. The cost benefit ratio of this project appears very high, and one that might set an example for other private landowners. This project, although small, is linked to a number of other ones. The proposal would have benefited from a little more effort to connect it to fisheries-related projects. They identify this as a highly ranked site for purchase of an easement, but do not describe why it is priority site. The methods are extremely general and how success or failure will be assessed is unclear. For example, what are the success criteria in objective 2, task A? The techniques for monitoring are weakly explained. Despite these weaknesses, the proposers made a good case for funding.
Comment:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Not well connected to umbrella projects 20511 and 9705900. There appears to be little connection to the rest of Deschutes Basin.Proposal not well written.
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.
The terms and conditions of the easement are unclear.
Unclear whether the easement has been acquired and unclear whether the budget will adequately support future O&M and restoration activities.
Comment:
Project scope changed significantlyComment:
Rank Comments: This was a well-written proposal that might set an example for other private landowners to maintain enhanced wetland, shrub-steppe, and riverine/riparian habitats on the South Fork of the Crooked RiverComment:
This was a well-written proposal that might set an example for other private landowners to maintain enhanced wetland, shrub-steppe, and riverine/riparian habitats on the South Fork of the Crooked RiverComment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];