FY 2000 proposal 20140
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Additions |
| Proposal ID | 20140 |
| Organization | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Ralph D. Webber |
| Mailing address | 16340 SW Beef Bend Road Sherwood, OR 97140 |
| Phone / email | 5035905811 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Secure, restore, and manage lands within the recently established Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge to protect and enhance fish, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and waters in the Tualatin River watershed. |
| Target species | Canada goose, mallard, wood duck, lesser scaup, common merganser, American bittern, great blue heron, spotted sandpiper, norther harrier, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, belted kingfisher, black-headed grosbeak, yellow warbler, willow flycatcher, Lewis’s wo |
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 |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| METRO Greenspaces Project | Tributary Corridor Linkages | |
| 9705900 | Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon | |
| Wapato Lake Additions | ||
| Multnomah Slough | ||
| EE Wilson WMA Additions |
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 | Initial & Terminal HEP Inventories | $25,000 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Capital | Acquisition of Lands: Based on Balance of Annual Earmarked Funds for FY-99 | $1,000,000 |
| Construction | Habitat Restoration | $225,000 |
| $1,250,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,250,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,250,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bureau of Reclamation | Engineering & Design | $75,000 | unknown |
| Ducks Unlimited | Contract Management | $25,000 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: NEPA requirements and issuance of permits in association with restoration activities.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund for one year. Subsequent funding contingent on an adequate monitoring and evaluation plan to ensure that their efforts are of greatest value to fish and wildlife in the Tualatin River Basin.Comments: The proposal lacks information describing restoration objectives and methods and in collecting baseline and monitoring data. No references are listed, and no data are provided about the relative value of this area compared to other lands that might be acquired and restored.
Specific questions and comments that should also be address are: What information is provided in this proposal to establish that this is the most deserving refuge to enlarge/enhance? Are benefits expected to be proportional to the land acquired? The proposal references a recent GAP analysis assuring that this project ranks high on the list of sites evaluated, but the specific ranking is not provided. What assurance exists, then, to establish the merits of these proposed additions? This is the second consecutive year that reviewers have found the description of monitoring lacking.
Comment:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.Is adding acreage to the wildlife refuge and funding wildlife refuge personnel an appropriate use of BPA funds?
Potentially high long-term O&M costs.
Unclear how many acres are being purchased.
Restoration activities are unclear.
Comment:
Comment:
OWCComment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]