Return to Proposal Finder FY 2003 Lower Columbia Proposal 200001600

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 Protect and Enhance Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Additions
BPA Project Proposal Number 200001600
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge), US Geological Survey
Business acronym (if appropriate) USFWS/USGS

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Peter Schmidt
Mailing Address 16507 SW Roy Rogers Road
City, State, Zip Sherwood OR 97140
Phone 5035905811
Fax 5035906702
Manager of program authorizing this project Ralph Webber
Review Cycle Lower Columbia
Province Lower Columbia
Subbasin Willamette
Short Description Provide riparian, forested wetland, and off-channel emergent wetland backwater habitats for salmonid rearing and predator avoidance areas adjacent to the main stem Tualatin River. Acquired and restored lands are protected and maintained in perpetuity.
Target Species Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon (T) Upper Willamette River Steelhead (T) Migratory waterbirds Breeding Neotropical landbirds

Project Location

Latitude Longitude Description
45 24 30 122 53 30 T2S R2W Sections 11, 12, & 13 in Washington County, Oregon (Oleson Restoration)
45 23 45 122 50 00 T2S R1W S17 in Washington County, Oregon (Westphal addition)
45 23 30 122 52 00 T2S R1W S18&19, T2S R2W S13&24 (Markley addition)

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs


Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

Information Transfer

The expected outcomes of this project are:

Data generated by this project are:

Are there restrictions on the use of this data?

Where do the data reside?
Private/Managed Locally:
[no information]

Public Access:
Printed at BPA
Peer-reviewed Journal

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

Data will be available at Tualatin River NWR, printed in annual reports, and shared with other agencies and interested publics.

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: Processing error; posted to web late. ANL 2/24/02
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): wildlife

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1998 Completion of multi-faceted wetland, upland, riparian habitat restoration project on Steinborn tract (TRNWR) including multiple partners providing funds and services such as BOR, DU, and NAWCA.
1999 Purchase of addition #1, Oleson 1 parcel
2001 Purchase of addition #2, Oleson 2 parcel
2001 Signed intergovernmental contract (IGC) with BPA
2001 Completed baseline HEP survey on Oleson 1 & 2
2001 Signed an MOA with BOR for survey, design, and contracting services.
2001 Commenced pre-restoration site preparation (fence removal, mowing, discing).
2001 Completed major wetland, riparian forest, forested wetland, wet meadow prairie, and upland restoration projects on Morand and Dennis units of TRNWR in cooperation with METRO, Washington County, Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, and BOR .

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description
199705900 Securing wildlife mitigation sites - Oregon Oregon Wildlife Coalition (OWC) project was the umbrella for the first TRNWR acquisitions. While TRNWR applied as a stand-alone project (#200001600) for restoration funding, OWC applied for acquisition funding on behalf of TRNWR and others.
199906600 Multnomah Channel Riparian Habitat Restoration Focused on habitat restoration and enhancement of various wetlands and degraded riparian habitat along the Multnomah Channel and adjacent creeks.
199205900 Amazon/Willow Creek Wildlife Mitigation Project Acquired and enhanced land contiguous with the Willow Creek Wildlife project area in Eugene, OR. Restored and enhanced native wet prairie and oak woodland habitat.
199107800 Burlington Bottoms - Phase I Developed management plan for Burlington Bottoms Wildlife tract to protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife.
199206800 Willamette Basin Mitigation Program Mitigate for wildlife habitat losses through the use of easements, acquisitions, management plans, and enhancement activities to benefit fish and wildlife "while maintaining and improving water quality and quantity, habitat connectivity and functionality.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Plan and design habitat restoration a. Complete survey and engineering ($29,260). 1 $ 0 x
b. Complete habitat restoration and management plan including NEPA, ESA, NHPA, and CWA ($19,120). 2 $ 0  
2 $ 0  
2 $ 0 x

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information

Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

n/a or no information

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Protect 20 acres at-risk mature riparian habitat. a. Purchase addition #3, 15-acre Westphal property. 1 $123,750  
b. Purchase addition #4, 5-acre Markley property. 1 $ 41,250  
2. Implement critical riparian and wetland plant community restoration. a. Complete site preparation on addition #1 ($27,645). 2 $ 0 x
b. Restore hydrology and native plant community to addition #1, 109 acres ($198,225). 2 $ 0 x
3. Implement important remnant upland plant community restoration. a. Restore addition #1, 23 acres to oak/pine savanna (Oleson 1) 5 $ 0 x
b. Restore addition #2, 98 acres to oak/pine savanna (Oleson 2) 5 $ 0 x

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
3. Additions #1 & 2, Oak/pine savanna restoration (Oleson 1 & 2, 121 acres) 2004 2005 $254,100

Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

FY 2004

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Habitat maintenance. a. Maintain habitat with water management, discing, mowing, etc. Ongoing $ 7,500  
b. Maintain equipment and provide supplies necessary for habitat maintenance. Ongoing $ 2,500  

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. Habitat maintenance. 2004 2007 $ 40,000

Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2003 cost Subcontractor
1. Determine use and benefits to fish and wildlife, evaluate vegetation response, and determine water quality parameters. a. Research and monitor use by listed salmonid species 5 $ 80,000 x
b. Monitor water quality. 5 $ 200  
c. Monitor habitat response to restoration activities. 5 $ 300  
d. Monitor wildlife response to restoration activities. 5 $ 500  

Outyear Objective-Based Budget

Objective Starting FY Ending FY Estimated cost
1. Research and monitoring 2004 2007 $324,000

Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007
$ 81,000 $ 81,000 $ 81,000 $ 81,000

Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2003 Cost
Personnel FTE: 0.72 $ 39,780
Fringe $ 9,352
Supplies $ 11,600
Travel $ 6,445
Indirect USGS overhead $ 21,348
Capital Land acquisition $165,000
NEPA Previously funded $ 0
PIT tags # of tags: 1,100 $ 2,475
Total Itemized Budget $256,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 project cost $256,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2003 budget request $256,000
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
USFWS Pump lift station $275,000 cash
Ducks Unlimited/NAWCA 2 water control structures $150,000 cash
Ducks Unlimited/OWEB Riparian forest revegetation $ 94,400 cash


Outyear Budget Totals

2004 2005 2006 2007
Construction/implementation $254,100 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Operations and maintenance $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Monitoring and evaluation $ 81,000 $ 81,000 $ 81,000 $ 81,000
Total Outyear Budgets $345,100 $ 91,000 $ 91,000 $ 91,000

Other Budget Explanation

Dollar values listed in parentheses were previously funded and require no further funding from Bonneville.

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
Mar 1, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
A response is needed. This proposal is to acquire 20 acres, restore 230 acres, and conduct a research and monitoring program to determine off-channel habitat use of listed salmonid species. The proposal will also restore habitat by reversing hydrological alterations by installing levees and water control structures in off-channel areas to mimic natural conditions. The Tualatin River is a low-gradient shallow river whose riparian and wetland habitats have been significantly affected by heavy agricultural and urban use.

The proposal represents partnerships among various groups and organizations. A brief summary of work done to two parcels acquired in 1999 and 2000 is provided

The response should describe the additional benefits to fish and wildlife provided by these new parcels. What is the relative value of these parcels to salmonid habit in the TNWR? What is the justification for their acquisition? The photographs provided suggest that these parcels are situated to provide significant additional habitat benefits, but the proposal should detail the specific benefits expected.

The response should include more details of the restoration actions taken to date, and the methods in use to collect data to support a monitoring plan. Restoration methods under Objective 2 should be described in more detail. E.g."...according to plans and designs...." (Task 2) is not adequate detail to understand the methods to be used. What are the components of the restoration plans?

Overall, good detail is provided on monitoring and evaluation. However the should address whether baseline data (pre-restoration) exist, and whether restoration objectives exist in a form that the M&E can assess progress toward their achievement. For the response, proponents should refer to the programmatic section of this report on prioritization of habitat restoration and acquisition projects, and on monitoring and evaluation, specifically with regard to use of standard regional protocols.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
High Priority
May 17, 2002
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
$256,000 $345,100 $ 91,000 $ 91,000 $ 91,000

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 2002-11 Recommendation:
Jun 7, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Fundable. While the response seems to be a reasonable response to the ISRP comments it certainly did not provide substantial detail on such questions as whether baseline data (pre-restoration) exist, and whether restoration objectives exist in a form that the M&E can assess progress toward their achievement. The proposal represents a purchase opportunity to make significant additions to riparian habitat along the Tualatin River that would likely aid fish and wildlife in the Tualatin area. However, there is a highly urbanized area downstream from these properties so the likely benefit may be limited. The location of the parcels within the purchase boundary of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a plus.

The priority of this effort should be further analyzed as to benefits to fish and wildlife. Our recommendation does not address CBFWA's High Priority ranking.

NMFS Review Recommendation:
Jul 19, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Potential rearing benefits through protection and enhancement of riparian areas.

Continued acquisition of land important for long-term and consistent with need for restoring PFC. Use of water control problematic. Continued work on refuge plan with explicit links to listed fish (Sec 7 consult) needed.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

BPA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Jul 23, 2002
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Recommend deferring consideration of new anadromous fish habitat acquisitions in the Willamette Subbasin until issuance of the NMFS/USFWS BiOp for the Willamette Basin federal hydroprojects. Consideration of funding of the salmonid RM&E portion of this project should await development of a regional RM&E framework and conform elements of this project with the RM&E framework. Recommend funding of ongoing O&M to protect past investment.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Oct 30, 2002
2003 2004 2005
$ 91,000 $ 94,094 $ 91,000

Willamette Issue 1: Wildlife Habitat Project Funding, Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project (Project 199107800), Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands Phase Two (Project 199205900), Implement Willamette Basin Mitigation Program (Project 199206800) and Protect and Enhance Tualatin River NWF Additions (Project 200001600)

Council Recommendation: The suite of wildlife projects proposed in the Willamette generates the same set of issues and the Council treats them as a group for recommendation purposes. Historically, most Fish and Wildlife Program funding in the Willamette Subbasin has involved mitigation for the construction and inundation losses associated with the series of federal projects on the Willamette system. These projects have primarily been the method of addressing those construction and inundation losses in the Willamette, although some funding for Willamette losses has also come from the Oregon wildlife umbrella project (199705900) covered in the Mainstem/Systemwide review.

All four projects identified above include funding requests for operations and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation and for habitat enhancement activities. Amazon Basin, the Willamette Mitigation and the Tualatin River NWF contain requests for habitat purchases associated with the expansion of the mitigation area (Tualatin and Amazon Basin) or with continued purchase of biologically significant parcels (Willamette). The Willamette project also includes a new objective - the cost share portion of a Corps of Engineers study for floodplain restoration study for the Coast and Middle Forks of the Willamette. Corps funds would come from their General Investigations program and the request for the Willamette project would provide the non- federal cost share for that feasibility study.

The Independent Scientific Review Panel rated all four projects as "Fundable", although they questioned the priority of all four projects. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority rated these projects as a High Priority. NOAA Fisheries comments indicated that although the projects may have some incidental benefits to fish populations, none of the projects implement a Biological Opinion RPA (the FCRPS Biological Opinion does not apply to Willamette stocks). Bonneville had fairly consistent comments on all four projects. BPA supported ongoing Operations and Maintenance and Monitoring and Evaluation funding to preserve past investments as wildlife mitigation. They generally did not support expansion of the projects through habitat purchase. However, Bonneville did indicate that the Willamette project and Amazon Basin could target new acquisitions after "a thorough review of the overall strategy for wildlife mitigation in the Willamette Basin. We [BPA] intend to work with the project sponsors and the Council to investigate alternatives for achieving wildlife mitigation that may be more cost effective than current land acquisitions."

The Council supports the general approach of reducing the current scope of land acquisition in the Willamette Basin. These projects have received ISRP and manager support and merit continued operations and maintenance and monitoring funding to preserve the past investments of the Fish and Wildlife Program. There is apparently no dispute that unmitigated construction and inundation credits remain in the Willamette. Also not in dispute is the crediting ratio for enhancement activities on wildlife mitigation projects, which provide Bonneville with habitat credits at a one-to-one ratio. Thus, the Council recommends funding the aspects of these projects that support habitat enhancement objectives.

The Council believes that given the need to address the Endangered Species Act, particularly as it relates to the Reasonable and Prudent Actions applicable to the Estuary and Lower Columbia mainstem, and to chum salmon recovery (see Lower Columbia and Estuary General Issue 2), will require some temporary change of emphasis to the Fish and Wildlife Program in the Lower Columbia. Therefore, the Council recommends placing a hold on land acquisitions for these projects and reprogramming those funds to address the ESA considerations in these provinces, with one exception.

The Council recommends continued support for at least some acquisition strategy for the overall Willamette Mitigation project 199206800, although we would recommend reducing the scope of habitat acquisition funding by two-thirds of the proposed budget for that task. Per Bonneville's comments, the Council supports a review of the overall strategy of wildlife mitigation in the Willamette. The Council encourages an expedited review of the Willamette mitigation strategy, but believes that acquisitions to address the Bonneville mitigation responsibility should continue, albeit at the recommended reduced scale. The project had a base budget in Fiscal Year 2002 of $2.7 million. The CBFWA proposed amount for Fiscal Year 2003 was $1,567,500 and the Council proposed budget is $938,500.

In Fiscal Year 2003, the Tualatin project (200001600) had a CBFWA proposed budget of $256,000. By removing the acquisition funding, the Council revised budget recommendation is $91,000 for Fiscal Year 2003. Amazon Basin (199205900) had its acquisition funding placed in years two and three of the funding cycle. Under the Council revision, the project's budget decreased to $62,712 in Fiscal Year 2004 from the CBFWA proposed $322,500.

To leverage other funding sources (see Lower Columbia and Estuary General Issue 4), the Council recommends funding the new floodplain restoration study task of project 199206800. The Corps will fund fifty percent of the study costs and will then fund up to 65 percent of implementation costs for projects developed from the study. As the Corps notes in their comments on the project, "[T]he Corps cannot conduct the feasibility study or implement projects without a local match." (Letter of June 21 from Davis Moriuchi, Deputy District Engineer for Project Management.) Similar to leveraging funding opportunities in the Estuary (Columbia Estuary Issue 2), the Council believes that funding this task will help leverage other federal funds and the study results could provide direction for mitigation activities in the Willamette.

All funds for these projects would come from the base funding allocation for the Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces.

BPA Funding Decision Recommendation:
Apr 30, 2003
$ 90,250
Fund as Recommended

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005 2006
$ 94,094 $ 91,000 $ 91,000

Funding Category: Expense

Follow up on project details.

Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05 Recommendation:
Sep 20, 2003
2004 2005
$292,319 $ 0

Funding Category: Expense

We request reinstatement of funds removed by BPA from our previous contract to complete restoration work on BPA purchased parcels.

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$ 91,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 91,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 91,000
Sponsor (USFWS) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page