Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Implement Willamette Basin Mitigation Program |
| Proposal ID | 199206800 |
| Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Gregory B. Sieglitz |
| Mailing address | 7118 NE Vandenberg Ave. Corvallis, OR 97370 |
| Phone / email | 5417574186 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Gregory B. Sieglitz |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Ongoing |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Mitigate for hydro-electric facilities through enhancement, easement development, acquisition, restoration, and management of wetlands and other target habitat types and their respective species in the Willamette Basin in Oregon. |
| 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
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
| 1993 |
Inventory of western pond turtle population in Confluence area. Final report. |
| 1994 |
Inventory of western pond turtle population in remaining Willamette Basin suitable habitat. Final report. |
| 1995 |
Background information collected and inventory of potential mitigation sites conducted. Telemetry of turtle population. |
| 1996 |
Began development of partnerships for habitat projects on public lands. Graduate project and summary of turtle telemetry. |
| 1997 |
GIS developed and Confluence Atlas of GIS data produced. Hydrologic data of Confluence area report compiled. Confluence HEP sampling and final report. Alternatives Team final report. |
| 1998 |
Purchase of 44 acre riparian forest and agricultural land. Identified two new focus areas in the basin. Developed partnership with McKenzie River Trust and Watershed Council. HEP and NEPA surveys conducted on 44 acre site. |
| 1999 |
Technical Advisory Group formed. Photo point monitoring methods established. Revegetation of portion of 44 acre site. Non-native vegetation removal on two project areas. HEP and NEPA surveys conducted on 200 acre and 66 acre sites. Appraisals complete |
| 2000 |
Reforestation and non-native vegetation removal of portion of 44 acre and 220 acre sites. Completed hydrogeomorphic index to fish and wildlife habitats. Finalize ca.1850 vegetation map of basin. HEP and NEPA surveys and purchase of 100 acre site. |
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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Conduct NEPA surveys on project lands |
a. Develop necessary agreements to work on public and private lands |
on-going |
$12,550 |
Yes |
|
b. Coordinate and assist with cultural resource surveys |
on-going |
$5,200 |
Yes |
|
c. Coordinate and assist with hazardous materials surveys |
on-going |
$5,200 |
Yes |
|
d. Coordinate and assist with Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species surveys |
on-going |
$2,600 |
|
|
e. Evaluate enhancement measures using BPA NEPA checklists |
on-going |
$2,700 |
|
| 2. Develop habitat enhancement and management plan for project areas |
a. Facilitate meetings with stakeholders |
on-going |
$18,300 |
|
|
b. Develop goals, objectives, and strategies for habitat improvements and maintenance |
on-going |
$31,200 |
Yes |
|
c. Produce document outlining strategies |
on-going |
$14,000 |
Yes |
| Note: Refer to project # 199705900 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites-Oregon. Willamette Basin staff will be funded to assist with the completion of Objectives 1-4 found in Section 3. |
|
on-going |
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|
| $130,000 | $135,000 | $120,000 | $125,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Implement wildlife mitigation projects by negotiating with landowners, purchasing fee-title or easement options, conducting appraisals, completing NEPA surveys, developing project IGCs. |
a. purchase fee-title/easements of priority project lands using FY 2000 CARRY FORWARD FUNDS.
Priority projects are:
Muddy Creek/Mary's River Confluence 220 acres: $600,000
Coast Fork State Park area 30 acres: $150,000
McKenzie River Island 20 acres:
|
2001 |
$2,419,237 |
|
|
$50,000
Lower Middle Fork-Mt Pisgah 1700 acres:$1,619,237 |
|
$0 |
|
| Note:Refer to project # 199705900 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites-Oregon from which the following tasks would be funded. |
b. purchase fee-title/easements of priority project lands using FY 2001 OWC FUNDS
Priority projects are, but not limited to:
Mollala State Park area: $500,000
Stout Mountain 560 acres: $2,000,000
Short Mountain 265 acres: $500,000 |
2001 |
$0 |
|
| 2. Restore or enhance hydrologic connectivity in riparian, wetland, and floodplain areas |
a. Remove artificial barriers to functional hydrologic system |
2001 |
$10,000 |
Yes |
|
b. Enhance existing hydrologic features to provide better functionality |
2001 |
$5,000 |
Yes |
|
c. In some cases construct artificial features to mimic natural function |
2001 |
$5,000 |
|
| 3. Remove non-native vegetation in preparation of restoration |
a. Remove or discourage reed canary grass, scotch broom, Himalaya blackberry and others through inundation, shading, and by hand |
2001 |
$6,500 |
|
|
b. In severe cases remove with equipment |
2001 |
$4,575 |
|
|
c. Apply herbicides if necessary and if risks minimized |
2001 |
$3,000 |
|
| 4. Plant native vegetation in areas where restoration of hydrologic function and removal of non-natives is insufficient to promote natives |
a. Prepare site with equipment or by hand |
2001 |
$7,300 |
|
|
b. Plant vegetation |
2001 |
$4,000 |
|
|
c. Irrigate or otherwise promote establishment when necessary |
2001 |
$5,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|
| $2,000,000 | $2,000,000 | $2,000,000 | $2,000,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Maintain enhanced or artificial hydrologic features |
a. Perform maintenance to hydrologic connections, water control structures, and pumps |
periodic |
$1,750 |
|
| 2. Control non-native vegetation expansion |
a. Remove vectors such as roads and fill |
intermittent |
$2,500 |
Yes |
|
b. Hand remove where effective |
on-going |
$4,050 |
|
|
c. Remove using equipment when necessary |
on-going |
$6,750 |
|
|
d. Use herbicides where effective and safe |
on-going |
$1,000 |
|
| 3. Maintain minimal site infrastructure |
a. Maintain fences, gates, signs, roadways, trails, irrigation systems, etc. |
on-going |
$1,200 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|
| $150,000 | $200,000 | $35,000 | $50,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Conduct vegetation surveys to monitor changes in plant communities. |
a. Use photo points for monitoring vegetative and hydrologic changes |
on-going |
$1,200 |
|
|
b. Evaluate planting and cultivation methodology and correlate to survivability |
on-going |
$1,300 |
|
|
c. Correlate micro-site deviations with survivability |
on-going |
$750 |
|
|
d. Correlate age class and species with survivability |
on-going |
$1,375 |
|
|
e. Monitor mortality and determine cause |
on-going |
$1,000 |
|
| 2. Conduct wildlife surveys to monitor species response to habitat changes. |
a. Conduct periodic HEP sampling to quantify and qualify expected wildlife use |
periodic |
$2,000 |
|
|
b. Conduct wildlife surveys with established protocols to determine actual use |
on-going |
$1,000 |
|
| 3. Conduct hydrologic surveys to establish most effective techniques for restoring functionality |
a. Develop subcontract |
2001 |
$32,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|
| $70,000 | $80,000 | $50,000 | $60,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1 |
$26,290 |
| Fringe |
@ 38 % |
$9,990 |
| Supplies |
|
$5,000 |
| Travel |
|
$1,500 |
| Indirect |
@ 26 % |
$8,970 |
| NEPA |
Subcontractors |
$10,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Planning and design subcontractor; also see NEPA above |
$30,000 |
| Personnel |
FTE: .45 |
$9,766 |
| Fringe |
@ 38% |
$3,711 |
| Supplies |
|
$8,000 |
| Travel |
|
$1,000 |
| Indirect |
@ 26% |
$7,898 |
| Capital |
|
$2,419,237 |
| Subcontractor |
Hydrologic engineering firms |
$20,000 |
| Personnel |
FTE: .35 |
$5,228 |
| Fringe |
@ 38 % |
$1,987 |
| Supplies |
|
$2,700 |
| Travel |
|
$1,000 |
| Indirect |
@ 26 % |
$3,835 |
| Subcontractor |
Construction firm |
$2,500 |
| Personnel |
FTE: .20 |
$3,913 |
| Fringe |
@ 38 % |
$1,487 |
| Supplies |
|
$683 |
| Travel |
|
$300 |
| Indirect |
@26 % |
$2,242 |
| Subcontractor |
Hydrogeomorphic analyses |
$32,000 |
| $2,619,237 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $2,619,237 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $2,419,237 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $200,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $200,000 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
No change.
Reason for change in scope
No change.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
Comment:
Recommendation:
Does not fit with BPA program
Date:
Sep 8, 2000
Comment:
Recommendation: Based on the very high cost of providing HU's, the type of future projects planned and the small number of HU's provided (15 HU's in 5 years) in the Willamette Basin, we recommend the Council review this project.
Budget Background:
| 2001 Planning and Design Budget Request | $91,750 |
| 2001 Construction/Implementation phase Budget Request | $2,419,237 |
| 2001 O&M Budget Request | $17,250 |
| 2001 M&E Budget Request | $40,625 |
| |
| Total 2001 Budget Request | $2,619,237 |
| Less carryover/carryforward | $2,419,237 |
| |
| Total New Money 2001 Request | $200,000 |
This project was originally authorized in 1992 as the Western Pond Turtle Project. From 1992 through April 1995, it carried that title, and received $330,684 in funding.
In April 1995, the project title was changed to Willamette Basin Mitigation Project. From April 1995 to present, BPA has invested $745,017 in project planning and design and $172,955 to purchase the Sorenson property for the project, bringing the total for the period to $917,972. In return, BPA received 15 Habitat Units of Credit which equates to $11,530 dollars per HU if just the cost of the Sorenson property is counted, or $61,198 per HU if you include the design and planning money.
It is ODFW's contention that there are several other projects that will come on line in the coming years. These will contribute approximately 200-300 HU's each year. Although no documentation of the habitat units has been provided. We were also told last year that some of these projects were close to be implemented but nothing concrete has yet been provided.
We question the wildlife HU value of some of these projects. Working with Lane County Parks to improve wildlife habitat on an urban park, is an example of a project of limited value to wildlife. The proposed plan speaks to providing opportunities for low intensity outdoor recreation and education while protecting habitat, it also talks of how increased use may require septic drain fields. While some reasonable uses are compatible, it seems like the main purpose here is recreation, as an urban park should. BPA funded wildlife habitat improvements should not be degraded by grazing, drain fields, hiking trails and interpretive centers. Other proposed projects may not be of this nature, but this is the one example of a proposed BPA funded wildlife management plan which does not fit with our program.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
Comment:
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
capital
Date:
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $350,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website