Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Propagate Native Plant Species for Revegetation & Riparian Restoration Proj |
| Proposal ID | 9085 |
| Organization | USFS, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La Grande Ranger District (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Penny Hall |
| Mailing address | 3502 Hwy. 30 La Grande, OR 97850 |
| Phone / email | 5419628558 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Snake / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | Develop diverse species program for La Grande Ranger District. Collect seed and cuttings from several native plant species, and propagate materials to be used in revegetation and restoration projects |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$10,900 |
| Supplies |
|
$500 |
| Travel |
|
$500 |
| Indirect |
|
$6,142 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$29,050 |
| $47,092 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $47,092 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $47,092 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Scheduling constraints could be determined by crop failure (seed production) or other weather related delays.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Pass (Fundable)
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Technical Issue: The WTWG understands the merit of promoting greenhouses in these areas, for site-specific plant propagation and the related cost-effectiveness, and they understand the overall watershed benefits from native plants, but request that the sponsor identify information that indicates that fish and wildlife benefit more from native plants.Management Issue: Management note – consider if there is an "in-lieu" issue associated with the personnel and indirect costs.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
In-lieu funding issue. Proposed tasks appear to be "in lieu of other expenditures authorized or required from other entities under other agreements or provisions of law". (Section 4.(h)(10)(A) of PNW Power Act).Budget constraints. Proposal was found to be technically sound and appropriate but was deferred because other work was judged more urgent and funds were not adequate for all needed work.
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is for a practical and simple goal, increasing use of native plant species in restoration projects. The goal is to grow about ten species of native plants. Methods for accomplishing the work are not well developed. Propagation methods should maximize genetic diversity within each species, but methods to achieve this are not detailed in the proposal. The proposal does not describe long-term plans for where plants will be propagated and grown. The proposal also does not list the projects that this project will service; thus, it also does not demonstrate the need to plant the plants. BPA should examine whether sites to be revegetated should be funded by BPA.