FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200001600: Tualatin River NWR Additions

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
January 10, 2006 Finalized Pete Schmidt

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200001600
Proposal Name: Tualatin River NWR Additions
BPA Project Manager: Dorothy Welch
Agency, Institution or Organization: Tualatin River NWR
Short Description: Continue restoration of Oleson Tracts 1 & 2 in accordance with approved 5-year restoration and management plan. Project benefits wildlife and anadromous fish.
Information Transfer:
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Pete Schmidt Tualatin River NWR 16507 SW Roy Rogers Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
Ph: 503.590.5811
Fax: 503.590.6702
Email: peter_schmidt@fws.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Pete Schmidt Tualatin River NWR 16507 SW Roy Rogers Road
Sherwood, OR 97140
Ph: 503.590.5811
Fax: 503.590.6702
Email: peter_schmidt@fws.gov
Form Submitter
Ralph Webber U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 16340 SW Beef Bend Road
Sherwood OR 97140
Ph: 503.590.5811
Fax: 503.590.6702
Email: ralph_webber@fws.gov
Project Lead

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Lower Columbia ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Willamette ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
45,24,26 122,53,30 Tualatin River Near Scholls, OR River Mile 25 Washington, Oregon Willamette No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
All Wildlife
Steelhead Upper Willamette River ESU

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Completed environmental compliance processes. Conducted wetland restoration activities including installation of 3 water wells and pipeline, water control structure, and levees. Planted 50 acres of native upland grass seed.
2004 Completed engineering design. Conducted hydrogeologic evaluation. Completed 5-year restoration and management plan. Completed interior fence removal. Purchased native grass seed. Continued invasive species control.
2003 Contiuned engineering design. Began environmental compliance processes. Conducted invasive species control. Continued interior fence removal.
2002 Completed topographic survey of Tracts 1 & 2. Began engineering design. Conducted invasive species control. Continued interior fence removal.
2001 Continued removal of interior fencing. Began conceptual restoration planning.
2000 Purchased Oleson Tract 2. Began removal of interior fencing.
1999 Purchased Oleson Tract 1.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 199107800 Burlington Bottoms Wldlf Mitig Burlington Bottoms - Phase I (Project #199107800) developed a management plan for Burlington Bottoms Wildlife tract to protect, maintain, and enhance habitat for fish and wildlife.
BPA 199205900 Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands - The Amazon/Willow Creek Wildlife Mitigation Project (#199205900) acquired and enhanced land contiguous with the 330-acre Willow Creek Wildlife project area in Eugene, OR, and continued restoration and enhancement of native wet prairie and oak woodland habitat.
BPA 199206800 Willamette Basin Mitigation The Willamette Basin Mitigation Program (Project #199206800) seeks to 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, biodiversity and overall ecosystem health.”
BPA 199705900 Or W/L Plan And Coordination Our acquisition program with Bonneville began with OWC (Project #19975900) Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites in Oregon. The program focused on acquiring and protecting habitat valuable to fish and wildlife resources throughout Oregon.
BPA 199906600 Mult Channel Rip Hab Restore The Multnomah Channel Riparian Habitat Restoration Project (#199906600) focused on habitat restoration and enhancement of various wetlands and degraded riparian habitat along the Multnomah Channel and adjacent creeks.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife As described in the Willamette Subbasin Plan and illustrated in the Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas, the Willamette Basin has lost 80 percent of its bottomland forests, 97 percent of its natural grasslands, and nearly100 percent of its oak savanna. Conservation attention has been focused for decades on upland forests. Restoration efforts should now focus on these valley and hillside habitats to benefit the unique and sometimes rare wildlife species that live there. Willamette Restore 107 acres of oak savanna, 20 acres of wet meadow prairie, 28 acres of emergent wetland, and 11 acres of scrub-shrub wetland. 5-2
Restore Lowland Riparian Areas Riparian vegetation along lowland streams and rivers in agricultural and urban areas needs to be reestablished. Riparian areas are important for both wildlife and aquatic species. Planting native vegetation along streams is a cost-effective way to improve habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species, in all settings: forested, agricultural, urban, and rural residential. While any natural vegetation is good, forested riparian areas are best for shading and adding logs and nutrients to the stream. Vegetation nearest the stream has the greatest influence, so it is most important to plant the full length of the stream. One long zone is more useful than several shorter, disconnected zones. Willamette Restore 41 acres of riparian forest. Enhance and maintain 8 acres of mixed hardwood, and 5 acres of mixed coniferous/deciduous forest. 5-2
Restore Processes that Maintain Watershed Health Restore Physical Habitats. Land and water uses over the past 150 years have dramatically changed the patterns and composition of natural vegetation and of species dependent on them. More than 60 percent of the basin’s older conifer forests have been converted to other land cover types or land uses. Natural grasslands have almost entirely been eradicated, shrubland has been halved, and hardwood forests diminished by three-quarters. About 75 percent of what formerly was wet and dry prairie, and about 60 percent of what was wetland, is now in agricultural production. The Willamette Basin has lost about 97 percent of the original area of bottomland prairie grasslands, 80 percent of its bottomland forests, and nearly 100 percent of its oak savannas. By 1990, more than half of the Willamette Valley area had been converted from natural vegetation to agriculture or development. It is estimated that, historically, there was approximately 40 percent more native terrestrial wildlife habitat than there was in 1990 and a nearly 80 percent greater abundance of native wildlife. Given the widespread effects of its loss and degradation, restoring physical habitat is of critical importance. Willamette The proposed project would specifically address "improving extent and composition of riparian areas" and "achieving and sustaning an adequate supply of standing and down dead wood in upland and streamside environments." 5-25
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health Achieve More Natural Flow Regimes. Hydrology is one of the most basic forces determining the structure, dynamics, and function of stream ecosystems. Flow affects nearly every aspect of ecosystem function, including habitat formation and maintenance, the flow of energy and materials, temperature, pollutant transport and the makeup of biological communities. The extent and composition of riparian vegetation, water quality, and the structure of instream habitats and communities are all strongly influenced by flow regimes. Protecting and restoring fish and wildlife populations ultimately means providing for the range of natural conditions under which they evolved. Because of flow’s critical importance, failing to take it into account when conducting watershed restoration activities also may risk the success of these efforts. Willamette Restoration of wetland and riparian habitat types will improve water quality, natural flow regimes, infiltration of ground water, water temperature, and recruitment of coarse woody debris. 5-22
Riparian areas In evaluating potential conservation and restoration opportunities for riparian areas consider the following strategic approach to conservation and restoration efforts: Conservation 1. Concentrate efforts in the lowlands of the Willamette Valley. 2. Preserve the liner connectivity and extent of existing riparian areas. Riparian areas closest to the a river or stream have the greatest net benefit. 3. Place a priority on riparian areas that have the highest probability of inundation under current flow regimes. Consider topography, bank hardening structures, and current or potential flow regimes when choosing between conservation opportunities. Restoration 1. Concentrate efforts in the lowlands of the Willamette Valley. 2. Fill the gaps in vegetation closest to the river or stream 3. Improve vegetative age classes and composition (more variety of bigger trees including closer range of historic conifers). 4. Expand riparian areas in those places with the highest probability of inundation during high flood events. Willamette This project would provide riparian habitat in a streamside habitat that has flooded in 8 of the past 10 years. This project will enhance linear connectivity to other refuge units along Tualatin River. 5-34

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Obtain permits and section 7 consultation $ 0
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland Enhance wetland $ 0
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland Restore Shrub/Scrub Wetland Restore 11 acres of scrub/scrub wetland 12/1/2007 9/30/2008 $66,347
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health
* # of acres treated: 11
* # of acres treated: 11

Enhance Floodplain Restore Ash Forest. Restore 8 acres of ash dominated forest. 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $14,672
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Lowland Riparian Areas
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health
Riparian areas
* # of acres treated: 8

Enhance Floodplain Restore Riparian Habitat Restore 41 acres of riparian habitat adjacent the Tualatin River 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $297,293
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Lowland Riparian Areas
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health
Riparian areas
* # of acres treated: 41

Enhance Floodplain Restore Wet Meadow Prairie Restore 20 acres of wet meadow priaire using approved herbicides and/or mowing. 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $1,931
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health
* # of acres treated: 20

Improve/Relocate Road Improve access road to water control structure $ 0
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Plant Vegetation Purchase Seeding Equipment Purchase no-till seed drill for bobcat 10/1/2007 9/30/2008 $5,733
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Plant Vegetation Restore Oak Savanna Restore 107 acres of oak savanna habitat 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $48,373
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health
* # of acres of planted: 107

Remove vegetation Purchase Clearing Equipment Purchase blade for bobcat 10/1/2007 9/30/2008 $5,967
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Maintain Vegetation Maintain Emergent Wetland Maintain 28-acre emergent wetland. 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $1,580
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Processes that Maintain Watershed Health
No Metrics for this Work Element

Maintain Vegetation Maintain Oak Savanna Maintain oak savanna with approved herbicide and/or mowing to control invasive species. 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $7,020
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Manage and administer contracts $ 0
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Plan Produce Restoration and Management Plan Produce restoration and management plan for Henrickson parcel. 10/1/2009 9/30/2010 $21,200
Biological Objectives Metrics
Focus on Valley and Foothills Wildlife
Restore Lowland Riparian Areas
Restore Processes that Restore Watershed Health
Riparian areas
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Complete annual report $ 0
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor Habitats Conduct field monitoring of habitats using standardized methods such as line transects, and stratified random plot sampling. 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $72,117
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor Wildlife Populations Conduct monitoring of various wildlife guilds such as neotropical migratory songbirds, shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, and waterfowl. 10/1/2007 9/30/2010 $72,117
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
Supplies Bobcat seeder $5,733 $ 0 $ 0
Supplies Bobcat blade $5,967 $ 0 $ 0
Personnel Full-time temporary Bio-tech $42,781 $44,495 $46,274
Fringe Benefits Full-time temporary Bio-tech $3,422 $3,559 $3,706
Other Restoration and Maintenance activities $87,458 $48,631 $301,124
Other 5-year restoration and management plan $ 0 $ 0 $21,200
Totals $145,361 $96,685 $372,304

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$614,350
Total Work Element budget$614,350

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
Friends of the Refuge Volunteer labor $3,060 $3,060 $3,060 In-Kind Under Development
US Fish and Wildlife Service Salary $23,760 $24,710 $25,699 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $26,820 $27,770 $28,759

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$43,000 $338,000 Costs include maintenance and monitoring of restoration elements conducted during 2007-09 and prior years, as well as additional restoration elements.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
Most restoration features require a minimum of 5 years of maintenance before plantings become self sufficient. Additionally, control of non-native invasive species may require on-going treatment.
 
Termination Date Comments
None Restoration of several parcels of the Tualatin River NWR is on-going. As new parcels are acquired restoration may be required to fully benefit fish and wildlife species.
 
Final Deliverables
Quarterly and annual reports will be submitted describing accomplishments during the appropriate period.

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


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

FY 2007 Budget
$145,361
FY 2008 Budget
$96,685
FY 2009 Budget
$372,304
Total NPCC Rec
$614,350
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.


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

FY 2007 Budget
$145,361
FY 2008 Budget
$96,685
FY 2009 Budget
$372,304
Total NPCC Rec
$614,350
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:

Local or MSRT Comments: Fund the project as recommended unless some portion of the improvements can be funded from other sources, such as CREP.


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

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: The expected outcome of this ongoing project would be the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on the site, while also maintaining and increasing associated habitat values for target and other wildlife species. The 179.5 Habitat Units (HUs) generated by the 2001 HEP would be protected and maintained, while an additional estimated 230+ HUs would also be provided through enhancement activities. Note that the ISRP does not recommend HEP as a vegetation-monitoring tool.

The proposed project will continue habitat restoration features that should benefit wildlife species as well as listed anadromous and resident fish species. Project activities would include restoration of oak savanna, riparian forest, scrub/shrub wetland, wet meadow prairie, ash woodland, and the enhancement of emergent wetland and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat types.

A concise, yet detailed, response generated confidence in the sponsor's understanding of and commitment to monitoring. Provisions for monitoring and evaluation are adequately described in the response. The project history is briefly summarized in the proposal with more information concerning project effectiveness provided in the response.

The response also addresses a question concerning the downstream highly urbanized conditions that are likely to limit the benefit of this project. More information on how this project contributes to efforts associated with related projects is provided in the response.

Reporting of results is adequate. In the future sponsors are encouraged to describe the adaptive management implications of their results.


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

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: The expected outcome of this ongoing project would be the protection, maintenance and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on the site, while also maintaining and increasing associated habitat values for target and other wildlife species. The 179.5 Habitat Units (HUs) generated by the 2001 HEP would be protected and maintained, while an additional estimated 230+ HUs would also be provided through enhancement activities. The proposed project will continue habitat restoration features that will benefit wildlife species as well as listed anadromous and resident fish species. Project activities would include restoration of oak savanna, riparian forest, scrub/shrub wetland, wet meadow prairie, ash woodland, and the enhancement of emergent wetland and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat types.

A response is requested to provide better details on methods, objectives and details on the monitoring and evaluation plans. Provisions for monitoring and evaluation are mentioned in general, but the adequacy of the effort is unclear based on the material presented. More information is necessary to determine if the proposed monitoring effort will allow decisions as to the effectiveness of the project.

The project history is briefly summarized, but more information concerning project effectiveness is needed. Past monitoring efforts are briefly mentioned, but interpretation of the effectiveness of the restoration activities to date is necessary. Is there a basis for expecting these methods to be successful, perhaps based on past projects and monitoring from other sites?

The response should also address a question raised in the last review concerning the downstream highly urbanized conditions that are likely to limit the benefit of this project. More information on how this project contributes to efforts associated with related projects is needed.

The objectives are clearly defined with many being measurable. Specific benefits to fish and wildlife are mentioned but quantification of targets is needed. For example, the benefits should be stated as what can be accomplished on this parcel in this time towards the larger objective (e.g., plant 6 acres of x size ash at density of y with z% survival at 3 years). General bird species monitoring is unlikely to produce data that can be tied to habitat improvements. Actual use of improved areas by birds for nesting, by neotropical birds resting, and by fish in seasonal wetlands, etc. would be useful. Benefits to fish and wildlife are anticipated, but it is difficult to determine if baseline and continuing monitoring will inform the process.

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