FY 2000 proposal 199902600
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 |
|---|---|
| 199902600 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Sandy River Delta Riparian Reforestation |
| Proposal ID | 199902600 |
| 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 250 acres of rare Columbia River floodplain ‘gallery’ riparian forest (dense, unbroken stands of black cottonwood, willow, ash). Reforestation will improve habitat for riparian forest species. |
| Target species | Restore 250 acres of rare Columbia River floodplain ‘gallery’ riparian forest (dense, unbroken stands of black cottonwood, willow, ash). Reforestation will improve habitat for riparian forest 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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Restored three aces riparian forest |
| 1998 | Restored eight acres riparian forest |
| 1999 | Planned restoration of 50 acres |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9902500 | Lower Columbia River Wetlands Restoration and Evaluation Program | 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 | Covered by USFS and partners | $0 |
| Fringe | Covered by USFS and partners | $0 |
| Supplies | Plants: purchased with grant funds ($40,000 granted in 1999) | $0 |
| Operating | Covered by USFS and partners | $0 |
| Capital | USFS purchased property in 1991 | $0 |
| NEPA | EIS completed by USFS in 1996. | $0 |
| Travel | Covered by USFS and partners | $0 |
| Indirect | Covered by USFS and partners | $0 |
| Subcontractor | Site Preparation: $19,000Prepare HEP vaues: $5,000 | $24,000 |
| $24,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $24,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $24,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Columbia River Estuary Program | Cash grant for plant materials | $14,500 | unknown |
| Metro | Cash grant for plant materials | $16,000 | unknown |
| Friends of Trees | Planting labor; plant maint -enance; monitoring, admin. | $16,000 | unknown |
| Weyerhauser Found. | Plant Maintenance | $2,100 | unknown |
| USFS “Chief’s Natural Resource Agenda” | Cash grant for plant materials | $10,000 | unknown |
| USFS, CRGNSA | Landowner, Admin, Monitor | $6,000 | 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.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. Recommend for a multi-year review cycle with high priority. The project should be reviewed in 5 years for results.Comments: This is an attractive project, modestly priced and with good potential. Apparently the watershed analysis plan and environmental impact statement are complete. BPA support would represent only about one-fourth of the total cost, with support from a diversity of other entities and volunteer labor for planting. It appears to make good use of experimentation and adaptation to achieve the best planting/maintenance techniques. Baseline monitoring of neotropical bird migrants is available for four prior years, providing a good standard for evaluation of the effectiveness of the plantings in providing bird habitat. Two years' experience with a pilot project and small-scale plantings have identified some problems and led to solutions that should improve survival of planted stock in the future.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: In the absence of periodic flood disturbance, what is the likelihood that the area intended for reforestation will sustain itself? HEP monitoring appears adequate, although photo documentation of changes in the riparian community could be expanded and improved.
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 riparian restoration plans.
In contrast to project 20125 above, this proposal clearly shows the Forest Service's contribution of personnel and support, and only requests subcontracting costs for construction activities.
Strong cost-sharing involvement.
Proximity to high population areas may lessen wildlife values.
Will the sponsor be able to clear, plant and maintain 50 acres per year?
Comment:
FY 99 funds to be used for this request with $2,500 from FY 00Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]