Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Neotropical Migratory Bird Habitat Restoration Project |
| Proposal ID | 34015 |
| Organization | Portland's Environmental Services (BES) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Andi Curtis |
| Mailing address | 1120 SW 5th Avenue, 10th Floor Portland, OR 97204` |
| Phone / email | 5038232024 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Scott Clement |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Compare the effectiveness of prescribed burning and other treatment methods on fire dependent plant communities, reduce fuel loads of non-native plants, and re-establish native plantings creating native habitat for Neotropical Migratory Songbirds. |
| Target species | Neotropical migratory songbirds |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.5752 |
-122.706 |
Willamette Bluffs, Mocks Crest |
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 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. Compare native planting site preparation techniques within fire dependent plant communities. |
a. Develop a site plan that includes identifying criteria for selecting locations for testing various methods, an implementation strategy, and evaluation methods. |
1 |
$0 |
|
|
b. Begin implementation of site preparation plan. |
3 |
$68,875 |
Yes |
|
c. Compare site preparation techniques for control of non-native weeds and complete site preparation. |
3 |
$0 |
|
|
d. Determine the effect of prescribed burning on seed germination of fire dependent plants. |
14 |
$0 |
|
| 2. Reduce non-native plant fuel loads. |
a. Visually inspect 50 acre site to evaluate re-encroachment of non-native species |
14 |
$0 |
|
|
b. Monitor and maintain site preparation condition utilizing treatment methods (e.g. manual cutting, chemical application) |
7 |
$15,732 |
Yes |
| 3. Re-establish native plantings on 50 acre site. |
a. Specify and procure seeds, native plantings and plant installation materials. |
3 |
$87,438 |
Yes |
|
b. Plant. |
1 |
$25,275 |
Yes |
|
c. Maintain and monitor plant survival. |
12 |
$0 |
|
| 4. Prepare and submit reports. |
a. Document activities and findings of the project. |
12 |
$0 |
|
|
b. Create and distribute information in writing and electronically about the project. |
6 |
$0 |
|
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 (maximizing use of experienced in-house expertise, materials and services) |
$60,000 |
| Fringe |
@20% |
$12,000 |
| Supplies |
Drip torches, plant & seed materials & supplies |
$48,255 |
| Travel |
|
$0 |
| Indirect |
@15% |
$25,739 |
| Capital |
|
$0 |
| PIT tags |
|
$0 |
| NEPA |
|
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
Professional revegetation services |
$49,326 |
| Other |
Greenway permit |
$2,000 |
| $197,320 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $197,320 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $197,320 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| BES |
Development, monitoring, maintenance |
$13,200 |
in-kind |
| Portland Fire Bureau (PFB) |
Prescribed burning |
$15,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 24, 2002
Comment:
Not innovative. This proposal is to experiment with prescribed fire in the restoration of songbird habitat adjacent to the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon. Although it argues for priority funding due to ongoing work to date, it fails to establish how it is an innovative approach, versus an application of existing techniques for habitat restoration.
Additionally, the proposal is not strong. The focus appears to be research, but the proposal lacks an experimental design, rigorous adequate sampling methods, and description of statistical approach. The language used by the proponents suggests that what is planned is more a demonstration of techniques that are assumed to be desirable. The work would not be fundable under other solicitations without a much better developed approach to truly evaluating effectiveness of restoration methods.
Task 1 is to develop a site plan for the tests and restoration activities involving key stakeholders. Prominently missing from the list of stakeholders are the local landowners/homeowners. Their input should occur at this initial stage in some form, rather than seeking it later, after a plan has been developed.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 28, 2002
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Comments
Wildlife project - Not reviewed.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Comments
Wildlife Project - Not reviewed
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No