FY 2000 proposal 199902500
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 |
|---|---|
| 199902500 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Lower Columbia River Wetlands Restoration and Evaluation Program |
| Proposal ID | 199902500 |
| 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 / vkelly/r6pnw_crgnsa@fs.fed.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower |
| 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 | Breeding/migrating waterfowl, herptiles, raptors, other native wildlife/plants. Great blue heron, Spotted sandpiper, yellow warbler, black-capped chickadee, band-tailed pigeon, painted turtle, red-legged frog, Western pond turtle, lesser scaup, and mink. |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Installed water control structures |
| 1998 | Developed baseline data, strategies |
| 1999 | Disked 200 acres, began monitoring |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9902600 | Sandy River Delta Riparian ReForestation | Close physical proximity |
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 | Water level monitoring | $3,000 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Capital | Land purchased by Forest Service in 1991. | $0 |
| NEPA | EIS completed by USFS in 1996 | $0 |
| Subcontractor | $122,000 | |
| $125,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $125,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $125,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ducks Unlimited | Cash, Engineering, Wildlife Monitoring, Admin. | $36,000 | unknown |
| US Fish and Wildlife | In-kind, Cash | $94,000 | unknown |
| OR Dept Fish/Wildlife | Cash | $3,000 | unknown |
| National Forest Found | Cash | $15,000 | unknown |
| National F&W Found | Cash | $18,000 | unknown |
| Portland State Univ. | Wetland Delineation | $6,000 | unknown |
| USDA Forest Service | Administration, Coordination | $5,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: None known at this time.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fund for one year with low priority
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year with low priority. Subsequent funding contingent on addressing ISRP comments.Comments: The recommendation is mild, given that the proposal lacks clarity and focus and is derelict in several important areas. Habitat restoration in any location is assumed to encourage increased populations of target wildlife species, but there is virtually no quantified data offered here about the 200 acre site under consideration. The proposal contains insufficient details about any integration or coordination with other projects in or near the Sandy River Delta.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: The proposal should describe existing wildlife conditions in and adjacent to the 200 acres involved here: How badly depressed are those conditions, and how and by what degree is this proposal intended to improve? Assuming that local topography, differences in hydrology and other factors will affect the wetlands' response to three different management options listed in the proposal (Task No. 2(k) (Page 14)), what measurements are intended to compare and assess those responses? How, where, how frequently and on what basis will that evaluative procedure be conducted? Greater detail should be offered under Objective No. 3 (Pages 14-15) to explain survey techniques and measurements in order to assess the efficacy of proposed monitoring. The proposal includes a number of activities not proposed for BPA funding and not related to the Sandy River Delta. This discussion appears extraneous to the proposal, and might well have been omitted entirely or moved to the Project History section (8d).
The amount of overhead intended to multiple subcontractors should be closely examined. Layering of subcontracts (BPA to the U. S. Forest Service to Ducks Unlimited to the University of Idaho) is questionable.
Comment:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.Logical sequence of events, good monitoring program, good wetland restoration plans.
Methods are unclear.
Proximity to high population areas may lessen wildlife values.
Comment:
FY 99 funds to be used for this requestComment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $902,000 | $235,000 | $235,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website