FY 2000 proposal 20128
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 |
|---|---|
| 20128 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Riparian Restoration and Enhancement Planning for Multnomah Channel |
| Proposal ID | 20128 |
| Organization | Metropolitan Service District of Oregon (Metro) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jim Morgan |
| Mailing address | Metro Parks and Greenspaces Portland, OR 97232 |
| Phone / email | 5037971727 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Re-establish native riparian vegetation on public lands on Mutlnomah Channel bottomlands; assess vegetation and wildlife habitat on 309 acres of esturaine wetlands; develop enhancement strategy for freshwater marsh; develop watershed protection plan. |
| Target species | Cutthroat trout, Western painted turtle |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Planted riparian tree assemblage on 24 acres (approx. 0.7 mi. river/streambank) |
| 1998 | Conceptual design for flow control structures |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | Umbrella Project; explains intent for mitigation planning, coordination, and implementation by Oregon wildlife managers within Oregon. Identifies priority projects with specific budgets that will help meet mitigation objectives. |
| ODFW Willamette Sunbasin Umbrella Proposal | Umbrella project; explains management intent for anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in Willamette Subbasin. | |
| 9565 | Assessing Oregon Trust Agreement Using GAP Analysis | A mitigation planning tool used to analyze and rank potential mitigation projects within the basin. |
| 9284 | Oregon Trust Agreement Planning Project | A mitigation planning tool that includes methods for assembling a trust agreement and a list of potential mitigation projects. |
| 9206800 | Implementation of Willamette Basin Mitigation Program - Wildlife | A mitigation proposal focusing on land acquisition/easement, enhancement, and management of lands in the Willamette Basin. Similar in function as Coalition's umbrella project. |
| 20113 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, S. Fork Crooked River | |
| 20116 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Middle Fork John Day | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Logan Valley | ||
| 9140 | Acquisition of Pine Creek Ranch | |
| 20140 | Tualatin NWR Additions | |
| Juniper Canyon & Columbia Gorge Wildlife Mitigation Project | ||
| 20115 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Irrigon WMA Addition | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Trout Creek Canyon | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ruthton Pt. (Mitchell Pt.) | ||
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, E.E. WIlson WMA Additions | ||
| 20114 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Addition | |
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | |
| Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, McKensie River Islands |
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 | $2,500 | |
| Fringe | 34% | $850 |
| Supplies | Interplanting trees; herbicide | $3,000 |
| Operating | Metro contributes O&M | $0 |
| Travel | Contributed by Metro | $0 |
| Subcontractor | $58,650 | |
| $65,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $65,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $65,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metro | Tree Planting | $34,000 | unknown |
| Ducks Unlimited | Flow Control Structure Design | $30,000 | unknown |
| USDA | Flow Control Structures | $200,000 | unknown |
| Metro | Assessment and Planning | $72,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Seasonal flooding in January/February and May/June of each year may delay biological assessments.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. OK for a multi-year review cycle.Comments: The proposal is reasonably well documented and offers good cost- and facility-sharing provisions. The budget particularly seems focused on developing topographic and hydrological mapping.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: The proposal seems more in the form of a general narrative than an organized response to specific requirements. While technical and scientific background are complete, the rationale and significance to the region are not well described, nor is its relationship to other projects in the basin. Monitoring seems appropriate, but additional detail about techniques is invited.
Comment:
Technically Sound? Yes
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
It is unclear how this project relates to umbrella project 9705900.Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.
Clearly explain the objectives and expected accomplishments.
Unclear where property is located and if it is already protected.
Good cost-share.
Complete proposal Section 10. Information/technology transfer.
This project could be an urban showcase but proximity to high population areas may lessen wildlife values.
Comment:
$30,000 reflects proponent needComment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]