FY 2000 proposal 20114
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 |
|---|---|
| 20114 Narrative | Narrative |
| 20114 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Additions |
| Proposal ID | 20114 |
| 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 | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Enhance wetland habitats on lands adjacent to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Management Area to mitigate for wildlife habitats impacted by the lower four Columbia River hydroprojects. |
| Target species | Mallard, western meadowlark, Canada goose, spotted sandpiper, yellow warbler, downy woodpecker, mink, and California quail |
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 |
| 1996 | Developed partnerships with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Ducks Unlimited (DU) to facilitate project objectives |
| 1997 | Compiled more comprehensive prioritized list of mitigation sites; identified Ladd Marsh as priority area |
| 1997 | TNC began landowner negotiations for land acquisitions |
| 1998 | Title to 308-acre property secured by TNC |
| 1998 | FY99 proposal for $8,000 to enhance 308-acre property was approved and recommended |
| 1998 | DU prepared proposal for the Ladd Creek/Tule Lake Restoration Project |
| 1998 | Title to 160-acre property secured by TNC |
| 1998 | Enrollment of the 308-acre and 160-acre properties into the Federal Wetland Reserve Program |
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. |
| ODFW Grande Ronde Subbasin Umbrella Proposal | Umbrella project; explains management intent for anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in the Grande Ronde 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 proprosal focusing on land acquisition/easement, enhancement, and management of lands in the Willamette Basin. Similar in function as Coalition's umbrella project. |
| 20112 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Wenaha WMA Additions | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Logan Valley | ||
| 20134 | Acquire Oxbow Ranch - Middle Fork John Day | |
| 9140 | Acquisition of Pine Creek Ranch | |
| 20140 | Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Additions | |
| Juniper Canyon and Columbia Gorge Wildlife Mitigation Project | ||
| 20113 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, South Fork Crooked River | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Trout Creek Canyon | ||
| 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 | ||
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | |
| 20116 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte | |
| 20115 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Irrigon WMA Additions |
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 | 0.25 FTE | $11,598 |
| Fringe | @38% | $4,407 |
| Supplies | water control structure, planting supplies, weed control, and sign materials | $58,620 |
| Operating | incorporated into personnel and subcontractor line items | $37,000 |
| Capital | acquisition of 375-acre property | $216,000 |
| NEPA | for 375-acre property | $10,000 |
| Travel | $3,000 | |
| Indirect | @35.5% | $0 |
| Other | reimbursement to TNC for project acquisition costs | $17,012 |
| Subcontractor | Union Co. Weed Control Board | $3,000 |
| $360,637 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $360,637 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $360,637 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Nature Conservancy | Facilitated acquisition of 308-acre and 160-acre properties; will facilitate acquisition of additional property (note: reimbursement of this cost is being requested) | $17,012 | unknown |
| NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program | Paid for 75% of the cost of the 308-acre property and 100% of the cost of the 160-acre property; will likely contribute to cost of restoration activities and additional acquired properties | $373,000 | unknown |
| Ducks Unlimited | Prepared restoration plan for Ladd Marsh area | $17,000 | unknown |
| NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program | Will reimburse between 60% to 80% of the purchase price of the 375-acre parcel (note: 60% reimbursement amount is assumed in the cost-share) | $324,000 | 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 for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on submission of a detailed and justified management plan. The acquisition portion of the proposal is fundable, but the management plan for operation and maintenance is inadequate. Proposals for management and monitoring of wildlife mitigation land should be amenable to multiyear funding, but this would require a clear set of biological objectives (with justification), a specific plan for meeting them, and a description of a monitoring and evaluation plan that would allow assessing how well the plan was meeting objectives and whether particular management activities were successful, cost-productive, or otherwise justifiedComments: This proposal is for acquisition of land for wildlife mitigation and for management of the land to benefit wildlife. This is a well-written proposal that puts the proposed activities in a larger perspective. It coordinates well with other activities. It takes a systematic approach and advocates using evaluation to improve practice. This project is similar to the previous (20112), but the target area is the Ladd Marsh WMA. Funds requested in this project would be used to purchase title to a 375-acre parcel of land that has previously been identified by GAP analysis techniques as high-priority for protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat. Remaining funds will be used to develop and implement assessment, restoration, operations and maintenance, and monitoring and evaluation plans for two other previously acquired parcels. The programmatic need for and value of the land acquisition is made clear, but the management plan is not similarly justified. Much of the work is to enhance wetland habitat. . Although much of this proposal is for land management, it cites no land management or restoration literature. Why not remove, rather than alter, agricultural practices? The monitoring plan is not adequate to establish success of the management, nor are clear and measurable objectives of the enhancement/management given. The cost of acquisition is reasonable; one cannot judge whether the cost of O&M is reasonable without better presentation of the work. Proposers demonstrate good collaboration with TNC and good use of Federal Reserve funds.
Comment:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Good project, good area, questionable land transaction. It appears that BPA is paying for the property AND WRP is buying an easement on the same property.Objective 1 is to develop a restoration plan, but the project history states that Ducks Unlimited recently developed a restoration plan.
Clarify the relationship between the existing plan and future work.
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.
Comment:
Comment:
OWCComment:
(h) wildlife mitigation: four projects (20112, 20114, 20115, 20116) (Oregon Wildlife Coalition)Issue: The ISRP recommended that several new wildlife habitat acquisition and mitigation projects be funded for Fiscal Year 2000. Bonneville raised the issue in its comments submitted during the public comment period that funding these projects raises crediting issues, and would seek to postpone these projects (and others in the future) until crediting issues are resolved.
Council Recommendation: The Council recommends that Bonneville fund all wildlife projects recommended by CBFWA in Fiscal Year 1998, Fiscal Year 1999, and Fiscal Year 2000 that have been approved by the Council and recommended to Bonneville. This includes projects 20112, 20114, 20115, and 20116 referenced in Bonneville's August 13, 1999 comments. Pending resolution of the crediting issues, the managers and Bonneville should assign the HU's achieved by their projects on an interim basis to the hydroprojects where credits are believed to be available: NE Oregon (NPT), Logan Valley (BPT), Ladd Marsh (ODFW), Denny Jones (BPT), Wenaha (ODFW), and FY 99 and FY 00 Yakama Riparian acquisitions (YIN) to the Lower Snake; and Irrigon (ODFW), Pine Creek (CTWSRO), Horn Butte (ODFW), Trout Creek (ODFW), and S. Fork Crooked River (ODFW) to John Day, The Dalles, Bonneville, and the Willamette projects.
- The Council makes the above funding recommendations on the condition that it will facilitate a resolution of the crediting methodology, mitigation accounting, and equitable allocation of credits, and any other crediting issues that surface with the wildlife managers, Bonneville, and others. The Council is advised that the wildlife managers will be forwarding to it a recommendation on crediting methodology. The Council will use this recommendation as a vehicle to begin the discussions on all of the crediting issues discussed here.
- While not strictly an Fiscal Year 2000 issue, the Council considered and adopted an emergency motion related to the Pine Creek project (CTWSRO) in order to provide requested assurances to Bonneville that funding will be available in future years to pay the acquisition price of the property. The Council, by formal motion proposed by the Oregon Wildlife Coalition, voted to not approve any Oregon Wildlife Coalition projects in Fiscal Year 2001 unless and until the Pine Creek acquisition was completely funded.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];