FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34011
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 |
|---|---|
| 34011 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Western Painted Turtle Habitat Restoration Project |
| Proposal ID | 34011 |
| Organization | Portland's Environmental Services (BES) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Lynn Barlow |
| Mailing address | 1120 SW 5th Avenue, 10th floor Portland, OR 97204 |
| Phone / email | 5038232316 / lynnb@bes.ci.portland.or.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Scott Clement |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Protect and re-establish western painted turtle nesting and basking habitat through solid waste removal and native revegetation at Bonneville Ponds. Perform pre and post-project monitoring to determine affects on western painted turtle populations. |
| Target species | Western Painted Turtles |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.6067 | -122.7733 | Rivergate industrial area |
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Pre-project monitoring of turtles. | a. Visual surveys of turtle population. | 5 | $0 | |
| b. Painted turtle nest searches. | 5 | $0 | ||
| 2. Prepare site and planting plan to maximize benefits for western painted turtle populations. | a. Develop a site and planting plan that protects turtles during the project, identifies project criteria, provides clear roles and responsibilities, and evaluation methods. | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Develop an implementation strategy for the site and planting plan. | 1 | $0 | ||
| 3. Prepare site for revegetation activities. | a. Solid waste removal (volunteers) | 1 | $0 | Yes |
| b. Manual cutting of invasives | 1 | $4,748 | Yes | |
| c. Herbicide application, where necessary and appropriate | 1 | $4,000 | Yes | |
| 4. Re-establish appropriate native plantings for turtle nesting and basking. | a. Native seed procurement and application | 1 | $9,146 | Yes |
| b. Select and purchase native plants that provide turtle protection from predators and provide shading (temperature control) | 1 | $11,338 | ||
| c. Native plant and plant protection installation | 1 | $7,694 | Yes | |
| d. Establish native plants using mulch for soil moisture retention and weed abatement | 1 | $2,203 | Yes | |
| e. Maintain native plants through continued manual and, where appropriate and necessary, herbicide treatment for invasive plants | 6 | $9,547 | Yes | |
| f. Create basking places by installing large woody debris | 1 | $2,700 | Yes | |
| g. Plant dense native plantings to provide a buffer for turtle nesting and deter illicit dumping | 1 | $1,341 | Yes | |
| h. Monitor vegetation for survival | 14 | $1,200 | ||
| 5. Post-project monitoring of turtles. | a. Visual surveys of turtle population. | 5 | $0 | |
| b. Painted turtle nest searches. | 5 | $0 | ||
| 6. Prepare and submit reports. | a. Document activities and findings of the project. | 14 | $1,000 | |
| b. Create and distribute information in writing and electronically about the project. | 6 | $3,500 |
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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 2 part-time | $20,000 |
| Fringe | @20% | $4,000 |
| Supplies | Seed, native plants, plant installation materials | $10,975 |
| Indirect | @15% | $8,300 |
| Subcontractor | Professional revegetation services | $15,142 |
| $58,417 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $58,417 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $58,417 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PGE | Solid waste removal (pending) | $5,000 | cash |
| PDOT | Revegetation | $10,000 | cash |
| Metro | Turtle monitoring | $2,500 | in-kind |
| Port of Portland | Turtle basking materials | $3,500 | in-kind |
| Port of Portland | Revegetation (pending) | $10,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal does not meet the innovative criteria and should not be considered under this solicitation. Provision of habitat improvements is not a novel approach. Although it may very well be valuable to attempt to maintain turtle populations through habitat maintenance and restoration, this approach is not novel. Additionally, the proposal is quite superficial and makes many statements that are either vague or that require support that is not provided either by data presentation or citations from the literature (e.g., connectivity is key to the health of the ecosystem of SBLWA). The methods are not presented in adequate detail to judge the quality of the monitoring data that would result. The proposal seems very narrow in focus, as does the recognized group of stakeholders to be involved (BES, BPA, and Port of Portland).Comment:
Comment:
Comments
Wildlife proposal - Not reviewed.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUComments
Wildlife proposal - Not reviewed
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No