FY 2003 Lower Columbia proposal 199902500
Contents
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
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199902500 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199902500 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Lower Columbia: Columbia Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Lower Columbia: Columbia Lower Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest, Wetlands, and Anadromous Estuary Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 199902500 |
| Organization | U.S. Forest Service, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (USFS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Virginia Kelly |
| Mailing address | 902 Wasco, Suite 200 Hood River, OR 97031 |
| Phone / email | 5413081720 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Daniel T. Harkenrider, Area Manager |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 45.5697 | -122.4071 | 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:
| RPA |
|---|
| 152 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | 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. |
| NMFS/BPA | Action 157 | NMFS | BPA shall fund actions to improve and restore tributary and mainstem habitat for CR chum salmon in the reach between The Dalles Dam and the mouth of the Columbia River. |
| NMFS | Action 152 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall coordinate their efforts and support offsite habitat enhancement measures undertaken by other Federal agencies, states, Tribes, and local governments by the following: |
| NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
| 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. |
| BPA | Action 157 | NMFS | BPA shall fund actions to improve and restore tributary and mainstem habitat for CR chum salmon in the reach between The Dalles Dam and the mouth of the Columbia River. |
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 | Yes |
| b. Historic Mitigation | 1 | $25,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-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 | Yes |
| b. Planting | 3 | $28,500 | Yes | |
| 2. Wetland Restoration | a. Plant edges of wetlands | 3 | $12,000 | Yes |
| b. Remove Reed Canary Grass in 2 wetlands | 3 | $5,000 | Yes | |
| 3. Sandy River Dike Removal | a. Remove Dike/Silt | 1 | $0 | |
| b. Replace Access | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-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 objectives-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
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 | Yes | |
| 3. Sandy River Dike Removal (FS) | 0 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-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 | |
| $162,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 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 |
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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
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?Comment:
NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.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.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPossible 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
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.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.
Comment:
Fund as Recommended and to implement RPA 155, 157. BiOp relationship in Out-years is a council concern.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.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
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $902,000 | $235,000 | $235,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website