FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 199902500: Sandy River Delta Habitat Restoration

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 14, 2006 Finalized Virginia Kelly

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199902500
Proposal Name: Sandy River Delta Habitat Restoration
BPA Project Manager: Benjamin Zelinsky
Agency, Institution or Organization: US Forest Service (USFS) - Hood River
Short Description: Restoration of riparian bottomland forest, wetlands and restoration of the original Sandy River channel.
Information Transfer: Technical Assistance: The Forest Service was recently invited to share the restoration techniques developed at Sandy River Delta at an Oregon State Parks wetland mitigation site. Professional Socities: Findings have been presented to professional societies such as the Ecological Society of America and the Society for Ecological Restoration. Local university students assist with vegetation monitoring. Annual reports are available on the BPA website and the USDA Forest Service website for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Virginia Kelly U.S. Forest Service 902 Wasco Ave., Suite 200
Hood River OR 97031
Ph: 541.308.1720
Fax: 541.386.1916
Email: vkelly@fs.fed.us
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Virginia Kelly U.S. Forest Service 902 Wasco Ave., Suite 200
Hood River OR 97031
Ph: 541.308.1720
Fax: 541.386.1916
Email: vkelly@fs.fed.us
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Lower Columbia ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Sandy ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
45 33' 15.23" -122 22' 37.44" Floodplain of both Columbia and Sandy Rivers East of Troutdale OR. Bordered by Interstate 84 from milepost 18 to 20 to the south, the Sandy River to the west and the Columbia River to the north and east. Multnomah, Oregon Sandy No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho Lower Columbia River ESU
Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chum Columbia River ESU
Other Anadromous
Pacific Lamprey
Sockeye Snake River ESU
Bald eagle, yellow warbler, red eyed vireo. Numerous other neotropical migrants, waterfowl and herptiles.

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Wetlands: 10 acres spot sprayed. Riparian Forest: 65 acres planted. 115 acres interplanted. 115 planted acres maintained. Sandy River Channel: Hydrologic modelling underway. Historic resource mitigation completed.
2004 Wetlands: 10 edge acres planted. 30 acres disced and sprayed. Installed well for invasive species control. Riparian Forest: 50 acres planted. 90 acres site prep. 115 acres maintained.
2003 Wetlands: 30 acres disced. 50 acres sprayed. Purchased well pump and fuel tank. Riparian Forest Restoration: 67 acres planted. 57 acres site prep (initial year); 70 acres site preparation (second year). 143 planted acres maintained.
2002 Wetlands: 24 acres disced. 80 acres spot sprayed to control invasives. Riparian Forest Restoration: 120 acres site preparation.
2001 Wetlands: 45 acres deepened. 75 acres disced. Monitoring/Evaluation. Riparian Forest Restoration: 60 acres site prep. SRD GIS database. Long term site managment plan. Sandy River dike removal feasibility study. Final HEP report.
2000 Wetlands: 10 acres deepened. 75 acres disced. Wetland engineering design. Monitoring/Evaluation. Riparian Forest Restoration: 60 acres site prep. Partial mower purchase (Forest Service cost share). Draft HEP report.
1999 Wetland Restoration: 8 wetland acres deepened. 200 wetland acres disced to remove reed canary grass. Partial disc purchase (cost share with other partners ). Monitoring/Evaluation. Riparian Forest Restoration: 30 acres site prep. 14 planted acres grubbed

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
Other: City of Portland [no entry] Sandy River Habitat Conservation Plan The City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works, is developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Sandy River to comply with the Endangered Species Act. The Sandy River Delta dike removal project is one of the City’s proposed actions for inclusion in the HCP. As such, the Sandy River Delta project is linked to the City’s proposed actions on the Sandy River.
Other: Oregon State Parks [no entry] Rooster Rock State Park Wetland Enhancement The wetland restoration methods developed at Sandy River Delta are being used at Rooster Rock State Park (project not funded by BPA). Wetlands at both Sandy River Delta and Rooster Rock State Park comprise remnant wetlands of the lower Columbia River bottomlands. Rooster Rock State Park is about seven miles upriver on the Columbia River.
BPA 199902600 Sandy River Delta Riparian Res Projects 199902500 and 199902600 were consolidated into this proposal.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Bald Eagle Increase the viability of the bald eagle breeding population in the lower Columbia River, particularly through increased reproductive success. Lower Columbia S.M10 5-42,6-19
Lower Columbia River Chinook Recovery Goal Fall: Population between 1,400 and 2,800 fish (Sandy River) Spring: Population between 2,600 and 5,200 fish (Sandy River) Lower Columbia S.S1,S.S8,S.M4,S.M6,S.M7,S.M10, E.S3,E.M2,E.M7,E.M8. Sa.PO.2, Sa.PO.3 page A-223 5-24,6-10 to 29
Lower Columbia River Chum Recovery Goal Population between 1,100 and 2,200 (Sandy River). Lower Columbia S.S1,S.S8,S.M4,S.M6,S.M7,S.M10, E.S3,E.M2,E.M7,E.M8. Sa.PO.2, Sa.PO.3 page A-223 5-25,6-10 to 29
Lower Columbia River Coho Recovery Goal Population between 600 and 1,000 (Sandy River). Lower Columbia S.S1,S.S8,S.M4,S.M6,S.M7,S.M10, E.S3,E.M2,E.M7,E.M8. Sa.PO.2, Sa.PO.3 page A-223. 5-27,6-10 to 29
Lower Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Goal Population between 1,800 and 3,600 (Sandy River) Lower Columbia S.S1,S.S8,S.M4,S.M6,S.M7,S.M10, E.S3,E.M2,E.M7,E.M8. Sa.PO.2, Sa.PO.3 page A-223. 5-26,6-10 to 29
Pacific Lamprey Reverse the decreasing abundance trend and manage for populations that can meet cultural and ecological needs. Lower Columbia [Strategy left blank] 5-46
Red-eyed Vireo Protect critical preferred habitat including riparian gallery forest with tall, closed canopy forests of deciduous trees(cottonwood, maple, or alder and ash), with a deciduous understory, forest stand sizes larger than 50 acres, and riparian corridor widths greater than 50 m. Red-eyed vireos in the lower Columbia River mainstem and estuary are ecologically significant; they are considered an indicator of tall, closed canopy riparian habitat. Lower Columbia S.M10 5-47,6-19
Yellow Warbler Protect critical preferred habitat including riparian zones characterized by a dense deciduous shrub layer (1.5-4 m) with edge and small patch size (heterogeneity). Yellow warblers in the lower Columbia River mainstem and estuary are ecologically significant; they are considered an indicator of dense riparian shrub habitat. Lower Columbia S.M10 5-47,6-19

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
1: Plant Vegetation Plant Native Riparian Forest Trees and Shrubs on 50 Acres 2007: Plant native riparian forest trees and shrubs on 50 Acres (Area 3) prepared for new tree planting. Plant bare root seedlings at 1050 plants per acre at 12' by 4' spacing. Species: 40% Oregon ash, 30% black cottonwood, 30% mix of red osier dogwood, black hawthorne, red elderberry, snowberry, thimbleberry, blue elderberry, tall Oregon grape. $85,000 2008: Interplant trees and shrubs on 50 acres planted in 2007. Plant bare root seedlings at 150 plants per acre. $13,200 2/1/2007 5/1/2008 $98,200
Biological Objectives Metrics
Bald Eagle
Red-eyed Vireo
Yellow Warbler
* # of acres of planted: 50 acres

2: Maintain Vegetation Remove Invasive Weeds on 180 acres to Continue Establishment of Riparian Forest Overstory 2007:Remove invasive plants on 65 acres planted in 2005. Mow/cultivate between planting rows, band spray and spot spray. Minimal treatment of 115 acres (spot spray as needed). $20,100 2008: Remove invasive plants on 50 acres planted in 2007. Mow/cultivate between planting rows, band spray and spot spray. Minimal treatment of 115 acres (spot spray as needed). $19,500 2009: Remove invasive plants on 50 acres planted in 2007. Mow/cultivate between planting rows, band spray and spot spray. Minimal treatment of 115 acres (spot spray as needed). $15,500 2/1/2007 11/15/2009 $55,100
Biological Objectives Metrics
Bald Eagle
Red-eyed Vireo
Yellow Warbler
* # of acres treated: 180 acres

3: Plant Vegetation Plant 45 acres wetland scrub shrub 2008: Plant wetland scrub shrub on 30 acres at 1000 plants per acre. $56,100 2009: Plant wetland scrub shrub on 15 acres at 1000 plants per acre. $30,900 2/1/2008 8/1/2009 $87,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
* # of acres of planted: 45 acres

4: Maintain Vegetation Control and Remove Invasive Wetland Plants on 45 acres 2007: Spot/band spray 45 acres to control reed canary grass and prepare for wetland scrub shrub planting in 2008 and 2009. $5,000 2008: Remove invasives on 30 acres planted in early 2008. Mow/cultivate between planting rows, band spray and spot spray. $7,000 Spot spray 15 acres in preparation of 2009 planting. $900. 2009: Remove invasives on 15 acres planted in early 2008. Mow/cultivate between planting rows, band spray and spot spray. $4,800. Spot/band spray 30 acres planted in 2008. $4,000. 2007-2009: Purchase and deliver about 2,500 gallons of fuel. Keep water levels high through June/early July to retard reed canary grass. $6,000 per year 6/1/2007 9/30/2009 $39,700
Biological Objectives Metrics
* # of acres treated: 45 acres

5: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Complete NEPA for Dike Removal/Breaching The Forest Service will do the bulk of NEPA compliance in 2006, through production of Environmental Assessment (EA). 2007 includes public comment period on EA, content analysis, Decision Notice/FONSI and resolving any potential appeals. 1/1/2007 5/1/2007 $41,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Lower Columbia River Chinook Recovery Goal
Lower Columbia River Chum Recovery Goal
No Metrics for this Work Element

6: Produce Design and/or Specifications Design and Permitting for Sandy River Dike Removal and Access Replacement Design dike removal. Design access replacement (bridge). Prepare Secification and contract package. Obtain permits: Division of State Lands, Multnomah County Land Use Permit, NPDES, other. 6/1/2007 11/30/2008 $42,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Lower Columbia River Chinook Recovery Goal
Lower Columbia River Chum Recovery Goal
No Metrics for this Work Element

7: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Remove Sandy River Dike, Replace Access Remove Sandy River dike and remove sediment plug. Replace access, likely a bridge, needed by BPA powerline maintenance and Williams natural gas pipeline. 1/1/2009 12/31/2009 $2,000,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Lower Columbia River Chinook Recovery Goal
Lower Columbia River Chum Recovery Goal
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 1 mile

8: Manage and Administer Projects Manage and Administer Projects BPA Project Administration Requirements: Contract Package SOW, budget, spending plan, and property inventory, Metrics and Locations Report, Financial Income Report, and Accrual Reports. On-the-ground project management. Subcontractor project management costs. The "prime" subcontractor manages additional subcontractors, order materials, etc. Prepares contracts, invoices, etc. Cost is $9,000 per year, or $27,000 for 2007-2009. Additional $19,800 programmed to manage dike removal and bridge replacement. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $46,800
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

9: Produce Status Report Prepare Quarterly Reports Gather and provide to COTR progress information quarterly, and input into Pisces. These will be due within 15 days after the reporting period ends. Cost is $450 per year, or $1,350 for 2007-2009. 1/1/2007 12/31/2007 $1,350
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

91: Produce Annual Report Prepare Annual Report Submit annual report to BPA documenting 2006 activities and accomplishments. Cost is $800 per year, or $2,400 for 2007-2009. 1/1/2007 12/31/2009 $2,400
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Other all costs lumped $188,350 $133,950 $2,091,250
Totals $188,350 $133,950 $2,091,250

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$2,413,550
Total Work Element budget$2,413,550

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
ACOE Riparian Habitat Restoration $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Cash Confirmed
ACOE Dike Removal $ 0 $ 0 $325,000 Cash Under Development
City of Portland Sandy River Habitat Conservation Plan $ 0 $ 0 $885,000 Cash Under Development
Forest Service Project Management, Vehicles, Monitoring, etc $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $275,000 $275,000 $1,485,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$50,000 $50,000 Continued wetland enhancment work
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
 
Termination Date Comments
Depending on other partners and funding possibilities, it is difficult to project an end date.
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Do Not Fund
NPCC Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: We recommend that the Sandy River Delta project is funded at a $91K level equivalent to its FY2006 level. OSPIT supports the project for wildlife purposes and believes the work might be important for the Bi-op, but to implement the dike removal and other


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
Comments: The sponsor’s response adequately addresses the ISRP’s comments about monitoring. Monitoring is either ongoing or planned for vegetation, neotropical bird migrants, waterfowl, amphibians, and reptiles. Responses are specific and give details, especially with regard to avian monitoring.

Fish monitoring is less than adequate, with very sparse baseline data. Although the sponsors are going to accelerate fish monitoring, data will be obtained only in 2006 and 2007. Two years of fish monitoring is insufficient to detect fish responses to long-term habitat change. The sponsors should be encouraged to implement a long-term monitoring program for fish because even if there is a delay in dike breaching, the re-vegetation program underway is supposed to provide benefits to fish such as provision of riparian insects as food. The monitoring program could be tied into some of the proposed or ongoing fish monitoring and/or research on the mainstem Columbia River. The ISRP will expect more detailed information on fish monitoring in subsequent project reviews.

Dike removal is planned in 2009. Given the sponsor's additional response to the State/Province project recommendations, the planning and design for dike removal/bridge replacement with potential partners (City of Portland and US Army Corps of Engineers) should continue as a priority. The bridge replacement does seem more appropriate as a BPA capital improvements project.

The sponsors propose to report results via consultants' report and web sites. The sponsors should publish some of their data, at least in the grey literature. Information transfer has been mainly through regular annual reports.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: The project is clearly justified and could provide substantial benefits to both fish and wildlife. The sponsors have developed techniques that not only will be useful for this project but also will benefit other large-scale floodplain vegetation restoration projects. The major drawback of the project at this time appears to be the lack of a comprehensive, scientifically sound monitoring program (including effectiveness monitoring) that would quantitatively assess progress toward achieving the goal. Such a program is badly needed and should be instituted at this early stage of restoration. The program should be comprehensive in that it should provide for long-term monitoring of vegetation, wildlife, and fish. The documentation of long-term change in the vegetation and animal communities, like the restoration techniques, would be of great benefit to the region and to other projects.

More details are requested on results to date of the monitoring of vegetation and wildlife. The sponsors should give a perspective on needs for monitoring of fish use of the restored habitat. This project is a good example of a restoration project that requires long-term maintenance to ensure long-term benefits to fish and wildlife. Dike removal, which has apparently been delayed by BPA's needs to access their power lines, should proceed.

Technical and scientific background: The project is directed at restoring diverse floodplain and river channel habitat that, if accomplished, could benefit both important terrestrial species and fish. The need for such restoration projects is clear, given the scarcity of large floodplain areas in the Portland area. The problem is adequately defined. This section of the proposal would be improved by the addition and brief summary of relevant scientific and technical references.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal addresses specific objectives and strategies found in the Lower Columbia River and Sandy River subbasin plans. These objectives call for habitat restoration for terrestrial indicator species as well as endangered salmon. There is no mention of Biological Opinion issues related to Snake River chinook.

Relationships to other projects: The sponsors do not identify collaborative relationships with other projects, except to indicate that two other projects were consolidated into this proposal. The only linkage described in this section is internal (merging of their previous project numbers). The proposal would be improved if a strong collaborative effort with other (ongoing and proposed) related projects were described.

Objectives: The objectives are straight-forward and directly related to the restoration goal. However, the measurable benefits to fish and wildlife are not well described. It is unclear how the sponsors will measure progress toward accomplishing objectives related to fish and wildlife.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods for vegetation restoration are well described and the sponsors are clearly competent in methods for vegetation restoration. The methods are clear and primarily describe the techniques employed for restoration. The sponsors have been refining the methods for vegetation restoration since the inception of the project. The sponsors seem to be successfully combating invasive species, deer, and soil quality.

In a previous review, the ISRP advised that future funding should be contingent on dike removal. The proponents note that alternatives for dike breaching and complete dike removal will be evaluated. The proponents need to provide more detail methods on this critical objective.

Monitoring and evaluation: The sponsors note that funding for monitoring and evaluation is not requested because that activity is conducted by the Forest Service. The proposal would be improved if more detailed methods of Forest Service monitoring and evaluation were provided so that reviewers could determine if these methods are adequate. In addition, coordination of this project with other monitoring and evaluation projects in the lower Columbia River is essential. The sponsors have not proposed a monitoring program for wetland restoration, an important, new part of the proposed project.

The results of M&E of the vegetation restoration are described generally and need to be expanded. Data on bird use of the restored area are being monitored but results are not given in the proposal or any of the cited documents. M&E of fish use does not seem to be in place and is not highlighted as a need in the proposal.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The facilities appear adequate. The personnel appear to have expertise in the appropriate disciplines for conduct of the project. The proposal would be improved by the addition of a salmonid expert, as salmon are the primary focal species that is supposed to benefit from this work.

Information transfer: This section of the proposal would be strengthened if the sponsors provided more information about information transfer. The databases resulting from this project appear to be maintained by USFS staff but plans for release and long-term storage are not described. If the USFS has such plans they are not evident in the proposal. The sponsors apparently do not publish scientific papers or gray literature. The proposal would be improved if results were published so that others involved in similar restoration projects could benefit from the information on successes and failures.

Benefits to focal species: The project could be very beneficial to both terrestrial and aquatic species. The project could contribute to a key general priority, restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, and it could provide some key riparian functions such as food provision. These functions have been compromised by urbanization in the lower Columbia River. If the dike is removed, there are likely to be long-term significant benefits. The utility of the project will be limited unless adequate monitoring is in place to quantitatively document changes in vegetation and animal communities as restoration proceeds.

Benefits to non-focal species: The project proposes to restore, on a relatively large scale, both terrestrial and aquatic habitats which, unquestionably, could benefit many non-focal species. The impact of proposed dike breaching will have to be carefully reviewed and presumably will be in the EIS. Invasive species such as purple loosestrife might take over disturbed habitat. Non-salmonid native fish could benefit from increased detritus and food supply.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.