Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199206800

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Implement Willamette Basin Mitigation Program
BPA Project Proposal Number 199206800
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Business acronym (if appropriate) ODFW
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Gregory B. Sieglitz
Mailing Address 7118 NE Vandenberg Ave.
City, State, Zip Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone 5417574186
Fax 5417474252
E-mail greg.b.sieglitz@state.or.us
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Lower Columbia
Subbasin Willamette
 
Short Description Mitigate for hydro-electric facilities through enhancement, easement development, acquisition, restoration, and management of wetlands and other target habitat types and their respective species in the Willamette basin in Oregon. The Willamette Basin Mit
Target Species All 19 Northwest Power Planning Council Fish and Wildlife Program target wildlife species in the Willamette basin. Objectives have been developed for fish species with emphasis on spring chinook salmon, steelhead trout, Oregon chub, bull trout, cutthroat


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.1, 7.6.A, 7.6.B, 7.6.C, 7.7, 7.8, 11.3.A, 11.3.D
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References Oregon Trust Oregon Trust Agreement Planning (OTAP) Project, Assessing OTAP Project Using GAP Analysis, BPA Wildlife Mitigation Program Final EIS, BPA Watershed Management Program Final EIS, Willamette River Basin Task Force: Recommendations to Governor John Kitzhaber, Clinton Administration’s Northwest Forest Plan, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan: Summary of Scientific Findings, District Wildlife Management Plans, ODFW Sub-basin Fish Management Plans, CBFWA Guidelines for Enhancement, Operations, and Maintenance for Wildlife Mitigation Projects


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): wildlife


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1993 Inventory western pond turtle population in confluence area
Produced final report
1994 Inventory western pond turtle population in remaining Willamette basin habitats
Produced final report including draft conservation strategy
1995 Radio telemetry of local confluence turtle population
Background information and inventory of potential mitigation sites
1996 Graduate project completed assembling one year of turtle telemetry and habitat data
Radio telemetry of turtle population continuation
Begin development of partnerships on public lands
1997 GIS developed and Atlas of GIS data produced
Graduate project completed assembling two years of overwintering, nesting and population data
Graduate project producing hydrologic analysis report
HEP sampling and report finalized
Alternative Team report finalized
1998 Purchase of 44 acre riparian forest and farm land
Identified two new focus areas in the basin
New partnerships developed with McKenzie River Trust and Watershed Council
HEP and NEPA surveys completed on 44 acre parcel
1999 Technical Advisory Group formed
Photo point monitoring sites were selected
Removal of non-native vegetation
Site specific Hydrologic and topographic surveys
Begin revegetation of field on 44 acre parcel
Finalize Pre-settlement Willamette Valley Vegetation Map
Index to Willamette basin habitats based on hydro geomorphology


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
ODFW Mainstem Umbrella Proposal Umbrella project; explains management intent for anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in and along the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers No
Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Using GAP Analysis A mitigation planning tool used to analyze and rank potential mitigation projects within the basin No
Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project A mitigation planning tool that includes methods for assembling a trust agreement and a list of potential mitigation projects No
9705914 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon Project which uses above two project results for the selection of mitigation sites in Columbia and Willamette watersheds Two sub-proposals are managed under the Willamette Basin Mitigation Program No
9107800 Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project First mitigation site in Willamette basin Implementation, surveys and equipment shared No
9205900 Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands Second mitigation site in Willamette basin Implementation, surveys, information, and knowledge shared No
Assess McKenzie Watershed Habitat and Prioritize Projects Information gathered will be shared between projects Prioritization of new areas for fish will help scoping wildlife project No
9607000 McKenzie River Focus Watershed Coordination Provides coordination, assessment, documentation, and collaboration in McKenzie watershed of project area No
9405300 Bull Trout Assessment-Willamette/McKenzie Baseline data for bull trout which will be applied to acquisition and enhancement actions in McKenzie and upper Willamette systems No
9705908 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon-Multnomah Channel Yes
20550 Willamette Basin Mitigation Program Umbrella Yes
9705906 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon-McKenzie River Islands Yes
9705907 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon-E.E. Wilson WMA Additions Yes
9705916 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon-Tualatin River National Wildli Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
4. Middle Fork and Coast Fork Wilamette River project area .
1. Conduct HEP and NEPA surveys on 190 acre riparian, riverine and wetland properties a. Conduct any fish and wildlife surveys necessary to determine if modifications to planned enhancement activities are necessary
1. b. Remove artificial structures preventing river flows into historic channels.
1. c. Remove cattle from areas where vegetative plantings will occur
1. d. Remove non-native vegetation in areas where native plant communities are desired
1. e. Plant native tree species and in some cases shrubs and forbs using information derived from Objective 4 and related projects
1. f. Develop partnerships include cost-sharing and identify additional funding sources for enhancement activities
2. Conduct NEPA surveys on private lands a. Develop necessary agreements to work on private lands
2. b. Coordinate and assist with Cultural Resource surveys
2. c. Coordinate and assist with Hazardous Materials surveys
2. d. Coordinate and assist with Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species surveys
2. e. Evaluate potential enhancement measures using Programmatic Wildlife EIS NEPA checklist
3. Conduct NEPA surveys on the 250 acres of public lands identified on the north bank of the Middle Fork Willamette River in the Alternatives Team report a. Develop necessary agreements to work on public lands
3. b. Coordinate and assist with Cultural Resource surveys
3. c. Coordinate and assist with Hazardous Materials surveys
3. d. Coordinate and assist with Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species surveys
3. e. Evaluate potential enhancement measures using Programmatic Wildlife EIS NEPA checklist
4. Begin monitoring and evaluation of the results of enhancement measures a. Continue use of photo point monitoring and quantify results
4. b. Evaluate the first year success of tree and shrub species planted during FY 1999
4. c. Correlate planting and cultivation methodology with vegetation survivability
4. d. Correlate micro-site deviations with vegetation survivability
4. e. Correlate age class and species with vegetation survivability
4. f. Determine wildlife species use if any in this first year
4. g. Apply any information which will improve success of Objective 1
4. h. Collaborate with other related projects and share information and knowledge gained
4. Upper Middle Fork Willamette River project area .
1. Conduct HEP and NEPA surveys on 190 acre riparian, riverine and wetland properties a. Map vegetation and habitat types found on the project lands
1. b. Determine species use through surveys or ancillary information
1. c. Formulate HEP Team
1. d. Select HEP species models based on habitat type and current or future species use
1. e. Conduct HEP field sampling
1. f. Compile HEP data, incorporate into the GIS and produce report
1. g. Develop necessary agreements to work on private lands
1. h. Coordinate and assist with Cultural Resource surveys
1. I. Coordinate and assist with Hazardous Materials surveys
1. j. Coordinate and assist with Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species surveys
1. k. Evaluate potential enhancement measure using Programmatic Wildlife EIS NEPA checklist
2. Begin negotiations with private landowners to secure option or conservation easement status to protect existing habitat values a. Participate in discussions with local land trust and private landowners
2. b. Develop necessary agreements to secure option or easement with objective of permanent protection for fish and wildlife
2. c. Conduct site visits
2. d. Evaluate the inclusion of the properties with the adjacent 800 acre state park lands
3. Develop pre-liminary habitat enhancement plan with Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and private landowners a. Facilitate meetings with stakeholders including Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and private landowners
3. b. Devleop goals, objectives and preliminary strategies for habitat improvement specifically for Oregon chub, spring chinook salmon, western pond turtle and red-legged frog
3. c. Produce document outlining preliminary enhancement alternatives
3. McKenzie River project area .
1. Using existing species and habitat data from the FY 1999 project activities develop habitat restoration and enhancement plan a. Identify degraded habitats and limiting factors to natural system functions
1. b. Determine current use of side-channel habitats by cutthroat trout and western pond turtle
1. c. c-Identify locations and enhancement measures for improving channel habitat
1. d. Identify location and enhancement measures for western pond turtle nesting area(s)
1. e. Select a range of alternative techniques for improving habitat conditions and removal of limiting factors
1. f. Evaluate potential enhancement measures using Programmatic Wildlife EIS NEPA checklist
1. Perform hydrologic analysis of property to determine feasiblity and risks associated with increasing flows in island channels a. Consult existing hydrologic data for the McKenzie River and the project area
1. b. Conduct detailed elevational surveys and map key features such as upper and lower ends of channels, constrained areas, dwellings and improvements and existing wetlands
1. c. Review historic data to determine periodicity and frequency of inundation
1. d. Evaluate potential future condition and improvement to fish and wildlife habitat
1. e. Develop risk analysis
1. f. Develop cost/benefit analysis
1. g. Determine whether a more detailed hydrologic analysis is necessary if enhancement appears feasible
3. Implement non-native reed cananry grass, scotch broom and Himalaya blackberry removal a. Remove or discourage non-native vegetation through inundation, shading and removal by hand
3. b. Where intrusions are too severe remove with equipment
3. c. Evaluate the potential impact of herbicides and effectiveness of biological controls
3. d. Apply herbicides if necessary
3. e. Remove vectors such as roads, fill and re-vegetate disturbed areas
3. E.E. Wilson WMA project area .
1. Using existing species and habitat data from the FY 1999 project activities develop habitat restoration and enhancement plan a. Identify degraded habitats and limiting factors to natural system functions
1. b. Determine current use of Soap Creek and Winter Creek and associated riparian areas by cutthroat trout, spring chinook salmon, western pond turtle and red-legged frog
1. c. Identify locations and enhancement measures for improving channel habitat
1. d. Identify location and enhancement measures for riparian forest areas
1. e. Identify location and enhancement measures for permanent and seasonal wetlands
1. f. Select a range of alternative techniques for improving habitat conditions and removal of limiting factors
1. g. Evaluate potential enhancement measures using Programmatic Wildlife EIS NEPA checklist
2. Perform hydrologic analysis of property to determine feasiblity and risks associated with removal of fish passage barriers including small reservoir a. Consult existing hydrologic data for Soap Creek and Winter Creek if available
2. b. Review engineering data for the reservoir and survey topography of key downstream wetland features
2. c. Review historic data to determine periodicity and frequency of inundation
2. d. Evaluate potential future condition and improvement to fish and wildlife habitat
2. e. Develop risk analysis
2. f. Develop cost/benefit analysis
2. g. Determine whether a more detailed hydrologic analysis is necessary if enhancement appears feasible
3. Prepare site and plant native tree species along riparian area of Soap Creek and Winter Creek a. Remove non-native vegetation which will compete with planted stock
3. b. Evaluate previous techniques for planting on this site and the Middle Fork and Coast Fork Willamette River project area and related projects
3. c. Treat site based on information gained in Task b
3. d. Set-up photo points and other monitoring techniques to evaluate success
3. Muddy Creek and Mary’s River confluence project area .
1. Conduct HEP and NEPA surveys on the 220 acre riparian, riverine and wetland property a. Map vegetation and habitat types found on the project lands
1. b. Determine species use through surveys or ancillary information
1. c. Formulate HEP Team
1. d. Select HEP species models based on habitat type and current or future species use
1. e. Conduct HEP field sampling
1. f. Compile HEP data, incorporate into the GIS and produce report
1. g. Develop necessary agreements to work on private lands
1. h. Coordinate and assist with Cultural Resource surveys
1. I. Coordinate and assist with Hazardous Materials surveys
1. j. Coordinate and assist with Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species surveys
1. k. Evaluate potential enhancement measure using Programmatic Wildlife EIS NEPA checklist
2. Begin negotiations with private landowners to secure option or conservation easement status to protect existing habitat values a. Participate in discussions with local land trust and private landowners
2. b. Develop necessary agreements to secure option or easement with objective of permanent protection for fish and wildlife
2. c. Conduct site visits
2. d. Evaluate the exclusion of the high value farm land and use cost savings to invest in adjacent riparian properties
3. Develop pre-liminary habitat enhancement with Corvallis Greenbelt Land Trust and U.S. fish and Wildlife Service a. Facilitate meetings with stakeholders including Corvallis Greenbelt Land Trust, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and private landowners.
3. b. Devlelop goals, objectives and preliminary strategies for habitat improvement specifically for Oregon chub, cutthroat trout, western pond turtle, waterfowl and red-legged frog
3. c. Produce document outlining preliminary enhancement alternatives

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/99 09/01/04 Increase habitat quality and quantity XX 20.0%
1 11/01/99 01/01/00 Determine NEPA compliance X 1.0%
1 01/01/00 02/01/00 Determine NEPA compliance X 1.0%
1 05/01/00 06/01/00 M&E to be used for Adaptive Management X 5.0%
2 03/01/00 09/01/00 Determine HUs X 5.0%
2 10/01/99 01/01/00 Interim protection of habitat values XX 6.0%
2 01/01/00 02/01/00 Evaluate potential habitat improvements X 10.0%
3 12/01/99 04/01/01 Identify habitat improvements to make X 10.0%
3 11/01/00 02/01/01 Feasibility of enhancement X 15.0%
3 09/01/00 11/01/00 Habitat improvement XX 20.0%
4 03/01/01 06/01/01 Identify habitat improvements to make X 5.0%
4 08/01/99 02/01/00 Feasibility of enhancement X 5.0%
4 08/01/01 09/01/01 Habitat improvement XX 2.0%
5 11/01/99 12/01/99 Determine HUs X 10.0%
5 10/01/99 05/01/00 Interim protection of habitat values XX 5.0%
5 10/01/00 12/01/00 Assessment of improved habitat values X 2.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel part-time and full-time staff $100,000
Fringe standard rate $ 38,000
Supplies enhancement materials, supplies, and equipment $ 70,000
Capital Option monies for two project areas $ 2,000
NEPA standard rate (4) project areas $ 10,000
Indirect $ 10,000
Total Itemized Budget $230,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $230,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $230,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Lane County Parks Over 2,000 acres of land, staff, and equipment $2,100,000 unknown
Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department Over 200 acres of land, staff and equipment $300,000 unknown
Springfield Utility Board, City of Springfield, Willamalane Parks and Recreation Department Over 300 acres of land and staff $375,000 unknown
Others TBD $ 0 unknown

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $200,000 $3,000,000 $500,000 $200,000
Total Outyear Budgets $200,000 $3,000,000 $500,000 $200,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Severe weather conditions, difficult negotiations with governmental agencies and landowners, new tasks proposed by BPA and inadequate funding


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bedrossian, K.L., J. H. Noyes and M.S. Potter. 1985. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Loss Assessment at Lookout Point Dam and Reservoir Project Middle Fork Willamette River, Oregon. Prepared by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for U.S. Department of E Yes
Beschta, R. L., W.S. Platts, J. B. Kauffman, and M.T. Hill 1994. Artificial stream restoration--money well-spent or an expensive failure? Universities Council on Water Resources Annual Conference, Big Sky Montana, Carbondale, IL No
Benner P. A., and J. R. Sedell. 1997. Upper Willamette River landscape: a historic perspective. Pages 23-45 in A. Laenen and D.A. Dunnette, editors. River quality: dynamics and restoration. Lewis, New York. Yes
Booker, M.S., Confluence: Ecology and Culture at the Forks of the Willamette River, Oregon. Master of Science Thesis. Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. August 1997. No
Bonneville Power Administration. 1993. Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project: Potential mitigation to the impacts on Oregon wildlife resources associated with relevant mainstem Columbia River and Willamette River hydroelectric projects. Yes
BPA 1997a. Watershed Management Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS - 0265. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR No
BPA 1997b. Wildlife Mitigation Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS - 0246. Portland, OR No
Bonneville Power Administration. 1997. Wildlife Mitigation Program Record of Decision. DOE/EIS - 0246. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Yes
Cowie, A., Overwintering Behavior and Home Ranges of the Western Pond Turtle at Howard Buford Recreation Area. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR. May 1997. Yes
Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O'Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E. Gaines, M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.. No
Defenders of Wildlife. 1998. Oregon’s Living Landscape-Strategies and Opportunities to Conserve Biodiversity. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.. No
Forman, R.T. and M. Gordon. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. No
Harris, L.D.. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. No
Holland, D. C. 1994, The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 300+ pp plus appendicies. Yes
Hulse, D. et al. 1997. Possible futures for the Muddy Creek Watershed, Benton County, Oregon. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Yes
Interior, U. S. D. 1980. Habitat as a Basis for Environmental Assessment. ESM 101, Release 4-80. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Washinton, D.C. No
Kagan, J.S. and S. Caicco. 1992. Manual of Oregon actual vegetation. Idaho Fish and Wildlife Research Cooperative Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. No
Kauffman, J. B., R.L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restroation in the western United States. Fisheries 22: 12-24. No
Machlis, G., D. Forester, and J. McKendry. 1994. Gap analysis and the National Parks: adding the socioeconomic dimension. Park Science. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 5pp. No
Miller, J.D., et al. 1997. Willamette Basin Task Force: recommendations to Governor John Kitzhaber. Yes
Noyes, J.H., M.S. Potter and K.L. Bedrossian. 1985. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Loss Assessment at Detroit and Big Cliff Dam and Reservoir Project North Santiam River, Oregon. Prepared by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for U.S. Department of Yes
Noyes, J.H., M.S. Potter and K.L. Bedrossian. 1985. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Loss Assessment at Dexter Dam and Reservoir Project Middle Fork Willamette River, Oregon. Prepared by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for U.S. Department of Energy, Yes
Noyes, J.H., M.S. Potter and K.L. Bedrossian. 1985. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Loss Assessment at Cougar Dam and Reservoir Project South Fork McKenzie River, Oregon. Prepared by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for U.S. Department of Energy, Bo Yes
Noyes, J.H., M.S. Potter and K.L. Bedrossian. 1986. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Loss Assessment at Green Peter-Foster Project Middle Fork Santiam River, Oregon. Prepared by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Yes
NPPC 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. NPPC 94-55. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR No
ODFW 1997. Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project Using GAP Analysis. In fulfillment of Project Number 95-65, Contract Number DE-BI179-92BP90299. Prepared for: U.S. Bonneville Power Administration; Project Cooperators: U.S Fish and Wildlife. Yes
ODFW 1997. Habitat Evaluation Procedure Results at the Confluence of the Middle Fork and Coast Fork of the Willamette River. Yes
ODFW 1997. Alternatives Team Recommendations for the Confluence of the Middle Fork and Coast Fork Willamette River Project Area. Yes
Pennisi, E. 1993. Filling in the gaps. Science News, Vol 144. 4pp. No
Preston, S., Noyes, J., and Potter, M. 1987. A wildlife habitat protection, mitigation, and enhancement plan for eight federal hydroelectric facilities in the Willamette River Basin. Prepared by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for U.S. Department Yes
Puchy, C.A. and D.B. Marshall. 1993. Oregon Wildlife Diversity Plan, 1993-1998. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. No
Rasmussen, L. and P. Wright. 1990. Wildlife impact assessment, Bonneville Project, Oregon and Washington. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for U.S. Dept. Of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 37pp. Yes
Rasmussen, L. and P. Wright. 1990. Wildlife impact assessment, McNary Project, Oregon and Washington. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for U.S. Dept. Of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 46pp. Yes
Rasmussen, L. and P. Wright. 1990c. Wildlife impact assessment, John Day Project, Oregon and Washington. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for U.S. Dept. Of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 47pp. Yes
Rasmussen, L. and P. Wright. 1990d. Wildlife impact assessment, The Dalles Project, Oregon and Washington. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for U.S. Dept. Of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 34pp. Yes
Rogers, V.. 1997. Hydrologic Study of the Willamette River Confluence Area. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of a Master of Science Thesis. Yes
Scott, M.J. and E. T. LaRoe. 1993. Status and directions of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Gap Analysis Program in 1993. Gap Analysis Bulletin No. 3. 2pp. No
Scott, M.J., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards Jr., J. Ulliman, and R.G. Wright. 1993. Gap Analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monograph No
Scott, M.J. 1994. Preface. National Biological Survey Gap Analysis Program Handbook, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID., 3pp. No
USDA 1996. Status of the interior Columbia basin: summary of scientific finding. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-385. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund with high priority
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund with high priority. The project is also recommended for two years funding with comprehensive review before expenditure of $3 million in FY2002.

Comments: This is a complex and comprehensive program whose objectives and tasks are clearly spelled out. The proposal offers a commendable background review and rationale that is in many ways better than the umbrella proposal. It is very well integrated with other activities in the Willamette Basin. To its credit, the proposal incorporates recent thinking in restoration ecology, including conservation biology and landscape ecology, with some emphasis on passive restoration.

Specific questions and comments that should also be addressed are: The proposed budget (of $3 million) represents a somewhat abrupt increase from previous funding levels. So large and complex is this proposal that it does not provide adequate detail on site-specific efforts. It does, however, offer explicit discussion of project compliance with principles listed in FWP Section 11.2D.1. Despite reference to the umbrella project in several places, Section 8 is significantly longer than the 10-page limit. One presumes that this is due in part to the five separate projects contained under this heading (although given that combination, one questions why Burlington Bottoms is treated separately).

Wildlife habitat work appears to have been thoroughly reviewed and prioritized under the OWC Coalition, with OTAP and GAP analysis. It would be of value to know what previous investments have been made in survey and an development for each of the project areas, with some critical assessment of progress in those efforts: in effect, an accounting of what has been accomplished and how near completion the work may be, perhaps in tabular form. Standard wildlife and fisheries monitoring surveys should be employed for establishment of baseline use and trend of use.


CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$230,000
Comment:

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Good proposal, well written, with identifiable objectives, tasks, and cost sharing.

Very expensive, but realize the limited opportunities and high cost of land in the area.

Proposal exceeds the page limit.


CBFWA: Wildlife Committee Comments Recommendation:
Fundable
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$230,000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
capital
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$350,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 0
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 0
Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page