Return to Proposal Finder FY 2003 Lower Columbia Proposal 199902500

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

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
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest, Wetlands, and Anadromous Estuary Restoration
BPA Project Proposal Number 199902500
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
U.S. Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
Business acronym (if appropriate) USFS
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Virginia Kelly
Mailing Address 902 Wasco, Suite 200
City, State, Zip Hood River, OR 97031
Phone 5413081720
Fax 5413861916
E-mail vkelly@fs.fed.us
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Daniel T. Harkenrider, Area Manager
 
Review Cycle Lower Columbia
Province Lower Columbia
Subbasin Sandy
 
Short Description Restore 600 acre island of rare Columbia River floodplain "gallery" riparian forest. Restore 200 acres wetland/associated upland habitat. Remove 1930's dike from original Sandy River channel to restore hydrology and increase anadromous habitat.
Target Species Migrating juvenile salmon and steelhead, breeding and migrating waterfowl, neotropical migrants, herptiles, herons, bald eagles and other raptors.


Project Location

Latitude Longitude Description
45 deg 33' 122 dg 22' 30" 1700 acres at the confluence of the Sandy and Columbia Rivers. Located east of the Sandy River at Troutdale, Oregon and north of I-84 at exit 18. Project is in Lower Columbia subbasin and Sandy subbasin as it is within the floodplain of both rivers.


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

RPA
152

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

This information comes from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) reviews of this project proposal. The following table represents BPA & NMFS determinations as to this proposal's relevance to particular Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs).

Reviewing Agency Action Number BiOp Agency Description
NMFS/BPA Action 155 NMFS BPA, working with BOR, the Corps, EPA, and USGS, shall develop a program to 1) identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, survey conditions, describe cause-and- effect relationships, and identify research needs; 2) develop improvement plans for all mainstem reaches; and 3) initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches. Results shall be reported annually.


Information Transfer

The expected outcomes of this project are:
Quantitative

Data generated by this project are:
Primary

Are there restrictions on the use of this data?
None

Where do the data reside?
Private/Managed Locally:

Printed
Electronic

Public Access: [no information]


In what other ways will information from this project be transferred or used?

We typically are asked to give talks on our restoration efforts several times per year to academic or resource groups.


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: Received late from BPA; processed 1/28/02. ANL
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): wildlife


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1997 Project 199902500: Installed water control structures.
1997 Project 199902600: Restored (cleared and planted) 3 acres riparian forest.
1998 Project 199902500: Developed baseline data, strategies.
1998 Project 199902600: Restored (cleared and planted) 15 acres riparian forest. Maintained 3 acres.
1999 Project 199902500: Disked and flooded 200 wetland acres, deepened 8 wetland acres, year 1 of monitoring.
1999 Project 199902600: Cleared 45 acres, planted 22,300 trees on 27 acres, maintained 18 acres, monitored planting success.
2000 Project 199902500: Disked 75 acres, deepened about 10 wetland acres, year 2 of monitoring.
2000 Project 199902600: Cleared 60 acres, planted 8 acres, maintained 30 acres, completed HEP analysis, monitored planting.
2001 Project 199902500: Deepened about 35 wetland acres, year 3 of monitoring, completed HEP analysis.
2001 Project 199902500: Completed feasibility study for Sandy River dike removal. Results favorable to dike removal.
2001 Project 199902600: Site prep on 210 acres, planted 25 acres, maintained 30 acres, completed HEP analysis.


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description
199902600 Lower Columbia River Wetlands Restoration and Evaluation Program Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest Restoration 199902500 and 199902500 are being folded into this one proposal. The projects are in direct proximity and we have already folded them into one contract with BPA.


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
3. Dike Removal: Planning a. NEPA 1 $ 35,000 x
b. Historic Mitigation 1 $ 25,000 x


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
3. Dike Removal: Design and Permits 4 4 $ 20,000


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

FY 2004
$ 20,000


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Riparian Forest Restoration a. Site Preparation 3 $ 46,500 x
b. Planting 3 $ 28,500 x
2. Wetland Restoration a. Plant edges of wetlands 3 $ 12,000 x
b. Remove Reed Canary Grass in 2 wetlands 3 $ 5,000 x
3. Sandy River Dike Removal a. Remove Dike/Silt 1 $ 0  
b. Replace Access 1 $ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. Riparian Forest Restoration 4 5 $150,000
2. Wetland Restoration 4 5 $ 54,000
3. Sandy River Dike Removal 5 5 $800,000


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$102,000 $902,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Riparian Forest Restoration (FS) $ 0  
2. Wetland Restoration (FS) $ 0  
3. Sandy River Dike Removal (FS) $ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. Riparian Forest Restoration (Forest Service assumes responsibility) $ 0
2. Wetland Restoration (Forest Service assumes responsibility) $ 0
3. Sandy River Dike Removal (Forest Service assumes responsibility) $ 0


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

n/a or no information


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Riparian Forest Restoration (FS) 0 $ 0  
2. Wetland Restoration 3 $ 10,000 x
3. Sandy River Dike Removal (FS) 0 $ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. Riparian Forest Restoration (Forest Service assumes responsibility) $ 0
2. Wetland Restoration (Forest Service assumes responsibility) 4 5 $ 20,000
3. Sandy River Dike Removal (Forest Service assumes responsibility) $ 0


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005
$ 10,000 $ 10,000


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2003 Cost
NEPA $ 60,000
Subcontractor $102,000
Total Itemized Budget $162,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 project cost $162,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2003 budget request $162,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 $121,500
% change from forecast 33.3%


Reason for change in estimated budget

1. Riparian Forest Restoration: We are increasing the scale of the restoration to larger annual acreages, with the goal of completing the restoration in 3 years (2003-2005). 2. Wetland Restoration: We are nearing completion of the wetland restoration and are ramping down the program. 3. Sandy River Dike Removal: This is a new, additional task. We want to be clear: the three restoration items can be funded independantly of one another.


Reason for change in scope

1. Riparian Forest Restoration: Our original workplan was to annually restore relatively small acreages using some expiramental methods. We have learned a great deal in the past 5 years and are now able to effectively implement a larger annual program. IN addition, if the dike is removed (see objective 3) our access may be limited and we will want the majority of the restoration work completed. 2. Wetland Restoration: We are nearing completion of the wetland restoration and are ramping down the program. 3. Sandy River Dike Removal: This task would restore the hydrology of the Sandy River and improve anadromous fisheries habitat in the lowest reaches of the Sandy River.


Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Various tree planting volunteers tree planting $ 1,100 in-kind
USDI, National Park Service dike removal engineering $ 10,000 cash
US Forest Service plants, labor, equipment $ 30,000 cash
US Forest Service monitoring, project managment $ 9,000 in-kind

 

Outyear Budget Totals

2004 2005 2006 2007
Planning and design $ 20,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Construction/implementation $102,000 $902,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Monitoring and evaluation $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 0 $ 0
Total Outyear Budgets $132,000 $912,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

We want to be clear: the three restoration items can be funded independantly of one another. Our priority for the restoration work are: 1. Riparian Forest Restoration 2. Wetland Restoration 3. Dike Removal.


Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 2002-2 Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
A response is needed. What is the current status of the fish populations in the old channel? A plan for monitoring fish utilization of the old channel following reconnection to the Columbia needs to be developed. The sponsors are asking for $800,000 for dike removal and access, yet the NEPA documentation and consequently approval for removal of the dike has not been granted. What is the prospect that dike removal would be approved?

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
May 17, 2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
$162,000 $132,000 $912,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Comment:
NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 2002-11 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fundable at high priority. The potential habitat area restored in this proposal is significant and it is an important area of the mainstem river. The restoration of wetlands and removal of the dyke may also be important to the continued restoration of chum salmon in this reach. Our assessment of this proposal and its potential benefits is contingent upon removing the dyke. Funding for future years should be contingent on this proceeding and the response makes it clear that funding contingent on dike removal is possible and that the project could be conducted in segments. NEPA analysis will be conducted in preparation for the dike removal, and this portion should be funded.

NMFS Review Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Possible benefit to growth and survival of ocean type salmonids

Comments
The proposal funding should focus on securing the dike removal aspect of the proposal first. The proposal is important in that it studies the type of habitat as rare and declining for chum. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


BPA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
A
Date:
Jul 23, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommend to implement RPAs 155 and 157 conditioned on document of changes in fish use in old versus new channel and linkage to dike removal. This project appears to be consistent with BPA's criteria for funding projects on Federal lands, but BPA will request documentation from the USFS as we have in the Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provinces.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
2003 2004 2005
$155,562 $932,000 $112,000
Comment:

Sandy Issue 1: Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest, Wetlands, and Anadromous Estuary Restoration (Project 199902500)

Council Recommendation: The US Forest Service - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area has conducted this ongoing project to restore rare Columbia River floodplain gallery riparian forest, restore wetlands and with a new objective, to remove a dike from the original Sandy River channel to restore hydrology and increase anadromous habitat, particularly for chum salmon. The Forest Service indicated that all the objectives are independently fundable. Comments and recommendations focused most particularly on the new task of dike removal as the crucial aspect of the project. CBFWA rated the project as High Priority. The ISRP rated the proposal "Fundable" and stated their "assessment of this proposal and its potential benefits is contingent upon removing the dike." NOAA Fisheries commented that the proposal addressed RPA 152 and that the "proposal should focus on securing the dike removal l" first. Bonneville recommended the project to implement RPAs 155 (initiate improvements in three mainstem reaches) and 157 (fund actions to improve and restore tributary and mainstem habitat for Columbia River chum) and wanted to obtain documentation of changes of fish use of the old channel versus the new channel and the links to dike removal.

Project sponsors have proposed an implementation strategy that would first restore the riparian forest, based upon their concerns that once the dike was removed, access to the site would be Issue summary for the Northwest Power Planning Council's Lower Columbia, Estuary, Columbia Cascade, Middle Snake and Upper Snake provincial review. Council approved version September 11, 2002. limited and they want to get the work accomplished before that event. The wetland restoration portion of the project is ramping down. Dike removal would require the proper NEPA analysis and engineering feasibility before implementation.

The Council believes that the dike removal aspect of the project is an important implementation of the RPAs associated with Columbia River chum restoration and recommends funding the additional task. The project sponsors should conduct the necessary NEPA analysis and other studies as soon as possible to proceed to implement the dike removal. The Council recommends that the $800,000 cost associated with the dike removal be added in Fiscal Year 2004 rather than Fiscal Year 2005 to support the ISRP recommendation that removal proceed as expeditiously as possible. Moving the dike removal up a year should not negatively impact the riparian forest restoration, since the sponsors indicated they would like to conduct those activities prior to removal.

The funds for this project, including the dike removal, would come from the base budget for the province allocation.


BPA Funding Decision Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Apr 30, 2003
2003
$155,562
Comment:
Fund as Recommended and to implement RPA 155, 157. BiOp relationship in Out-years is a council concern.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005 2006
$235,000 $902,000 $235,000

Funding Category: Expense

Comment:
Money from 02 added into 03. Unobligated dollars from 02 being spent in 03. Forest Service has not billed BPA for some work. Forest Service trying to get up to speed on billing, further discussion needed. Work could not be accelerated into 04 and will want to go back to the project schedule of doing it in 05.

Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05 Recommendation:
Date:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005
$235,000 $902,000

Funding Category: Expense

Comment:
Our 2003-2005 submittal requested over $900,000 in 2005, rather than in 2004. We have not been able to accelerate NEPA/design/permits in order to move the project ahead into 2004. We request to continue planning/design/permits in 2004, and move the $900,000 + amount into 2005,per our original proposal. We request a 2004 amount equal to the 2003 amount ($155,562).

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$902,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$235,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$235,000
Sponsor (USFS) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page