Section II - filepickup.wrd.state.or.usfilepickup.wrd.state.or.us/files/Publications/OWEB/OWEB...

2011-13 OWEB Watershed Restoration Application – Sections I & II – April 2012 Page 2

Section II

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Abstract. In approximately 200 words, 1) identify the project location, 2) state the watershed issue or problem to

be addressed, 3) the proposed solution including the area or other measurable units to be treated, 4) any proposed

effectiveness monitoring, and 5) how OWEB funds will be used.

The projects will improve off channel and floodplain habitat on Green Island. The 4.5 mile historic McKenzie

channel on Green Island has been altered by levees, straightening, and gravel extraction, resulting in the entrapment

of native fishes, increased suitable habitat for non-native fishes, and its disconnection from the floodplain. MRT

has retained River Design Group, to complete comprehensive restoration design plans for the gravel site, low water

crossing and channel reconnection at the Neck. The remaining 125 acres of agriculture fields on Green Island will

be out farm lease in Oct 2012 and native vegetation will be established to provide erosion control, limit weed

infestation, and restore the floodplain plant community. Additional partners include OWEB, ODFW, BPA,

USFWS, NOAA, and the Meyer Memorial Trust. SIP funds will be used for project management, construction

management, labor, materials, and travel.

2. Has this project or any element of this project, ever been submitted in a previous

application(s) to OWEB? Yes No

If yes, what was the application number(s)?

3. Is this project, or any element of this project, a continuation of a previously funded

OWEB restoration project(s)? Yes No

If yes, what was the grant number(s)?

4. Is this project a result of a previously funded OWEB Technical Assistance project(s)? Yes No

If yes, what was the grant number(s)?

5. Does this application propose a grant for a property in which OWEB previously

invested funds for purchase of fee title or a conservation easement; or is OWEB

currently considering an acquisition grant for this property? Yes No

If yes, what is the grant number(s)? 205-107

6. Is this project related to a proposed or funded Oregon State Weed Board Yes No

grant application(s)? If yes, list the month and year, or grant application(s) number, and briefly describe how this project

is related to the Weed Board application or grant.

7. Project Partners. Show all anticipated funding sources, and indicate the dollar value for cash or in-kind contributions. Be

sure to provide a dollar value for each funding source. If the funding source is providing in-kind contributions, briefly describe

the nature of the contribution in the Funding Source Column. Check the appropriate box to denote if the funding status is

secured or pending. In the Amount/Value Column, provide a total dollar amount or value for each funding source.

Funding Source

Name the Partner and what their

contribution is.

Cash

In-Kind

Secured

(x)

Pending

(x) Amount/Value

OWEB $ $ $

Landowner(s) or other partners: $ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

2011-13 OWEB Watershed Restoration Application – Sections I & II – April 2012 Page 3

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

Total Estimated Funds (add all amounts in the far-right Column): *$

* The total should equal the total cost of the project on page 1 of the application.

8. Have any conditions been placed on other funds that may affect completion? Yes No

If yes, explain:

9. Are you requesting OWEB funds for Effectiveness Monitoring? Yes No

If you check “Yes”, follow the instructions in Question R17

10. Are you requesting OWEB funds for Plant Establishment? Yes No

If you check “Yes”, follow the instructions in Question R18

2011-13 OWEB Watershed Restoration Application – Section III – April 2012 Page 1

Section III

SPECIFIC RESTORATION PROJECT ACTIVITY

These essay questions and their answers are designed to guide you and reviewers through a logical process of understanding and identifying the problem to “fixing” the problem and measuring for success. Refer to the Application Instructions for clarification and helpful examples. You may use the application form to respond to the questions, using additional sheets of paper as necessary OR answer the questions on separate pages. Be sure to include the question numbers and text of the questions before you begin typing your answers to assist the reviewers in evaluating your application.

Use 8½ x 11 paper. A double-sided application and materials are optional except for oversize maps and designs or multiple sets for reviewers. All materials should be single-spaced wherever possible, unstapled and unbound, except for sets of maps/photos/designs (see Page 1 of the application instructions for assembling multiples for reviewers). Use a 12-pt type size to answer the questions and a 10-pt type size for the tables. Use bullets where appropriate. Use bold face and italics for emphasis only. Do not use color highlights for text emphasis or in tables as the highlight turns black when the application is scanned. If the project involves multiple sites, be specific for each.

R1. Contextual Overview Provide the location and significance of the project including why that location was chosen and a brief explanation of the history of the issues leading to the project. Describe the project in the context of the landscape including the key water quality, water quantity, species, habitat, land use and resource management issues (physical or social) that are proposed to be addressed in that watershed. See the Application Instructions for clarification.

The McKenzie River Trust acquired 865 acres of the Green Island complex in 2003, recognizing that such extensive acreage, river channels, and off-channel areas provided tremendous opportunities to implement conservation strategies that had been developed by many partner organizations working in the Upper Willamette Basin. As the Trust and our partners have gotten to know the area better over the last 8 years of management and restoration efforts, the foresight of that initial acquisition and subsequent additions to the property has become increasingly apparent. The Green Island Project, presently 1,060 acres, gives us the chance to walk the talk of large-scale floodplain restoration, with all of its inherent challenges, risks, and opportunities.

In 2005, the United States National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) reported to the U.S. Congress that decreased juvenile salmonid access to rearing habitats was one of five limiting factors to the recovery of salmon in the region (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm). The Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) has singled out the lower McKenzie River and confluence area as a focus for restoration and protection of just such rearing habitats (Willamette Subbasin Summary 2002, p.143). The McKenzie Watershed Council’s biological assessment of the McKenzie-Willamette confluence area (2000) highlighted the specific conservation and restoration opportunities at the site. NMFS most recently reported that the Upper Willamette River Chinook is currently at a high risk of extinction (2008 Willamette Project Biological Opinion Executive Summary, pg. 7). The reduced access to off-channel habitat and reduced floodplain function and connectivity were again identified as limiting factors to the recovery of Upper Willamette River Chinook (NMFS, Willamette Project Biological Opinion July 2008; NMFS and State of Oregon, Upper Willamette River Conservation & Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon & Steelhead, August 2011). Oregon Chub are another federally listed species whose decline has been attributed to the loss of off-channel habitats in the Willamette. The discovery of an Oregon chub population within the Green Island complex in 2007 provided additional impetus for restoration actions at the site, and helped the Trust prioritize the acquisition of the CARP property, now a part of the GI Complex and this plan. MRT continues


to be an active participant of the Oregon Chub Working Group and continues to work closely with USFWS and ODFW on Oregon chub conservation planning at this and other sites and a letter of support for this project is enclosed with the application. MRT is in the process of working with ODFW to be included in the programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement for Oregon chub habitat enhancement. It should be noted that despite numerous sampling efforts, we have not found chub within the CARP site. All proposed earthwork, riparian planting, and plant establishment methods will be outside the currently delineated Oregon chub habitat. At the same time there has been a growing articulation of a broad range public values associated with healthy active floodplains, many of which have either been taken for granted or lost to poorly planned development. The growing interest in understanding, protecting, and investing in these “ecosystem services” has changed the conservation finance landscape over the last decade. As a site that is large enough to capture several meanders of the mainstem river, with multiple existing and potential side channels, alcoves, and other off-channel habitats, the Green Island complex has become a tremendous learning site for meaningful restoration action, monitoring, and research. Consequently the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others have invested in long-term research projects based at Green Island, making it an anchor learning site for floodplain management and restoration in the Willamette Basin.

R2. Problems to be Addressed Provide information specific to the project: a) The specific problem(s) you are addressing; and b) the root cause(s)

of the problem(s). DO NOT describe the project here; you will do so in question #R3. You may add narrative

in addition to the table.

Specific Problem(s) Root Cause(s) of the Problem

Lack of channel complexity (Site A)

Warm water/non-native habitat (Site A)

Native fish entrapment (Site A)

Barrier to fish passage (Site C)

Culverts undersized (Site B)

Barrier to fish passage at low flows (Site B)

Lack of native vegetation (Site A and D)

Lack of floodplain connection (Site D – set back levee)

Off channel habitat has been identified as a limiting factor in the Willamette, specifically for Chinook salmon. The site has historic modifications of the channel associated with gravel extraction, channel simplification and levee construction for farming. The native floodplain vegetation was removed for farming practices. The removal of barriers to the floodplain, creation of natural stream channel features, and increase of hydrologic connectivity with the mainstem will enhance habitat for native cold water species. The plantings will restore the floodplain vegetation improving habitat wildlife.

Add rows as needed

R3. Project Description


Using the table below, provide a description of the project that describes the restoration activities to occur (e.g., direct flow, remove 36″ culvert, construct free spanning bridge, place 12 three log clusters between RM 44 and 52, etc.), including a description of the methodologies (e.g., juniper – burning or cutting; tree release – manual or herbicide; etc.) and the equipment planned for use. In addition, describe any Project Management functions/ activities necessary to implement the project (e.g., acquire permits or landowner approval; solicit bids, award contracts, etc.). The degree of detail should match the project complexity and technical difficulty to allow for full evaluation of technical viability. For projects involving multiple sites, be sure to identify and describe them separately, as appropriate. This is not the place to describe the benefits of the project, but rather the specific elements of the proposed project. You may add narrative in addition to the table.

Project Element Proposed Action

Restoration Activity

Channel establishment at gravel ponds (Site A)

Excavation and fill will be completed to create linear stream-like features. Connectivity to the historical McKenzie channel will be enhanced to the north and south by excavating features of the impoundments. The channel depths and slopes will be constructed to facilitate native vegetation and natural flow patterns through the site.

Large wood will be utilized to enhance the newly created channel habitat. This work will require the use of heavy equipment including dozers, graders, shovels, and the like. Material is present on site, but additional material will be required to maximize the fill. *Note- Engineering design and hydrologic analysis of this site is a part of the current contract with River Design Group.

Re-vegetate (Site A)

Both the current footprint of historic gravel mining as well as the re-contouring of the site will necessitate significant planting efforts at CARP. This will entail redistribution and addition of soil and other planting materials, stabilization of slopes, and planting of riparian, and emergent wetland plant species. This action will necessitate the use of heavy equipment to distribute soils, and hand crews to plant plugs and seed. *Note- Planting prescription of this site is a part of the current contract with River Design Group.

Enhance low water crossing of old McKenzie Channel (Site B)

Replace current culverts and fill material with imbedded ford system or culverts that will allow free flow during high and low flows. *Note- design of this crossing is a part of the current contract with River Design Group.

Re-vegetate (Site B) Disturbed areas will be planted to stabilized soil and improve native habitat. *Note- Planting prescription design for this site is a part of the current contract with River Design Group.

Remove, breach, or lower dike at neck (Site C)

Replace current dike/roadway with a culvert (s) to allow connection between Willamette River side channels and the historic McKenzie channel. Excavate fill material adjacent to the Willamette side channel to increase hydrologic connection between the Willamette side channel and the historic McKenzie channel. This work will require the use of heavy equipment including dozers, graders, shovels, and the like. *Note- design of this site is a part of the current contract with River Design Group.

Re-vegetate (Site C) Disturbed areas will be planted to stabilized soil and improve native habitat*Note- Planting prescription design for this site is a part of the current contract with River Design Group.

Conversion of farm fields in southern half of Green Island (Site D)

Prep and plant 195 acres of farm fields with site appropriate mix of native floodplain vegetation, including forest, grassland, and wetland plant communities. This action will necessitate the use of heavy equipment to distribute soils, and tractors and hand crews to native vegetation.

Remove setback levee (Site D) Remove 350 foot setback levee from south floodplain to elevation of field. Removal of this small setback levee will allow more frequent inundation of the historic swale system in the southern portion of the island. Material will be utilized as fill for the CARP site.

Re-vegetate (Site D) Disturbed areas will be planted to stabilized soil and improve native habitat. Native grasses will be planted in the fall and trees and shrubs will be planted the following winter.

Add rows as needed

Project Management Activity

Contract award and construction oversight (A,B,C,)

MRT will work with consultants to manage and implement restoration actions pertaining to earth work.

Permit compliance (A,B,C) As part of the RDG contract, permit compliance will be completed on behalf of MRT.

Cultural Resource (All sites) MRT/Green Island is enrolled in the USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Cultural


Resource surveys will be completed under this program and coordinated with SHPO.

Plant Order (A,B,C,D) MRT will work with contractors to acquire planting supplies. Based on the large number required, yearly grow outs will be secured through nurseries.

Planting Contract (A,B,C,D) MRT will work with contractors for all aspects of plantings. See R18 for specifics

Plant Establishment (A,B,C,D) MRT will work with contractors for all aspects of plant establishment. See R18 for specifics

Add rows as needed

R4. Project Objectives What are the proposed project objectives? Provide specific objectives based on the location, size and significance of the project and provide information on how the objectives could be evaluated. The measurements should be able to be reported to document successful implementation. See the Application Instructions for the distinction between project objectives and achievement of goals.

Project Element Specific Objectives Measure for Evaluation

Channel establishment at gravel ponds 3 gravel ponds will be reclaimed Stream-like linear features will be present

Planting at gravel site 50% survival after two years % survival

Low water crossing 250’ crossing will be improved for fish passage and hydrologic regime

Increased flow during low water, durability during high flow events

Planting at low water crossing 75% survival after two years % survival

Neck Reconnection Levee will be breached/modified Hydrologic reconnection of side channel and historic McKenzie channel

Planting at reconnection 75% survival after two years % survival

South Island floodplain planting 60 % survival after two years % survival

Setback levee removal

350’ setback levee will be removed to provide surface water from the historic McKenzie channel to connect with the floodplain.

During bank full events, water from the channel will be reconnected with the floodplain.

Add rows as needed

R5. Project Design

a) Provide a list of qualifications and experience you will require for the project designer. If a project design has

been completed, identify the designer and what qualifications and experience they have.

In November, 2011, McKenzie River Trust entered into a design contract for restoration design and permit management with River Design Group. Tetra Tech is a subcontractor under this contract. The following individuals are a part of that contract team: Troy Brandt, Principal Biologist, will represent the Restoration Team and serve as the contact for the McKenzie River – Green Island project. Troy will also participate in the completion of project tasks and ensure efficient coordination among Restoration Team members. Over the past seven years, Troy has managed assessment, design, and implementation projects in the Calapooia River watershed and the North and South Santiam river watersheds. He also managed RDG’s assessment that included the lower Calapooia River and the Willamette River in the vicinity of Albany. Troy completed his B.S. at U.C. Davis in Environmental Biology and Management and his M.S. at the University of Montana in Environmental


Studies with an Aquatics emphasis. Troy is an owner of RDG and has been worked exclusively in the river restoration field for over 10 years. Scott Wright, PE, Senior Water Resources Engineer, will provide project quality control and senior review throughout the project. Scott has over 16 years of project management and design experience combined with extensive familiarity with rivers and streams throughout Oregon. Scott has established an excellent reputation with permitting agencies for doing quality restoration projects that are sensitive to landowner needs and restoration objectives. Scott completed his B.S. and M.S. in Water Resources Engineering at Oregon State University. Merri Martz, PWS, Senior Biologist, has twenty years of biological and restoration design experience; first with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, for nine years and now with the Tetra Tech Portland office for eleven years. Ms. Martz is the River Restoration Discipline Lead for the Tetra Tech Surface Water Group. She has managed or provided senior biological support and QC for several ongoing and recently completed habitat restoration plans and projects. Recently, she completed design and/or construction oversight for multiple projects along the Willamette River including Eugene Delta Ponds, Springfield Millrace, Oaks Bottom tidal reconnection, and is completing the feasibility study for the restoration of multiple sites as part of the Willamette Floodplain Restoration Study. For the Green Island project, Ms. Martz will be the lead biologist responsible for developing the riparian management plan. She will also oversee the regulatory compliance effort and coordinate permit acquisition with agency personnel. Curtis Loeb, P.E., Project Engineer, has 13 years of professional experience as a water resources engineer. His specific expertise includes: preparation of concept designs through final plans and specifications, cost estimating, construction planning and scheduling, and hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic and water quality analyses for various wetland, riverine and watershed restoration projects. For the Green Island project, Mr. Loeb will be the project lead for the hydraulic analysis. He will be responsible for developing, calibrating, and executing the reach level and site specific hydraulic models. Mr. Loeb will also prepare the No-Rise certification letter for Lane County and contribute a hydraulic summary for the final design report. Mr. Loeb completed his M.S and B.S. in Civil Engineering at U.C. Davis. He has been employed as a water resources engineer for 13 years and is a licensed engineer in Oregon (No. 84138PE), California (No. 66632), and Washington (No. 47221). Bill Fullerton, P.E., QA/QC, Senior Engineer, is the Discipline Leader for Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Analysis for the Tetra Tech Surface Water Group. He has 29 years of project engineering and management experience. His primary fields of expertise are hydraulics, sediment transport, geomorphology, and hydrographic data collection. Mr. Fullerton has served as Project Manager on a wide range of projects including: flood control analysis and design, floodplain studies, hydrologic analysis and modeling, river stability analysis and design, bridge hydraulic and scour studies, erosion and sedimentation investigations, river and stream restoration design, design of fish passage structures, and large scale hydrographic data collection to support federal system operations (i.e. Rio Grande, Columbia). Mr. Fullerton has extensive background in the analysis of sediment transport and fluvial geomorphic conditions in river systems throughout the western United States. He has assisted in the development of mathematical models to perform water and sediment runoff simulation for complex watersheds (MULTSED) and a sediment routing procedure coupled with HEC-2 (HEC-2SR). Mr. Fullerton has also participated in development of the FLO-2D model, a two dimensional flood routing model designed by Tetra Tech. He is experienced in the application of hydrologic and hydraulic computer models such as HEC-1 and HEC-HMS, HEC-2, HEC-FFA and HEC-RAS, HEC-6, FLO-2D, RiverWare and SWMM.


For the Green Island project, Mr. Fullerton will provide quality assurance review during the hydraulic modeling and design. Mr. Fullerton completed his M.S and B.S. in Hydraulic Engineering and Civil Engineering, respectively, at Colorado State University. He has 29 years of project engineering and management experience. Mr. Fullerton is a licensed engineer in Colorado (No. 22353), Utah (No. 96-317681-2202), New Mexico (No. 13149), and Idaho (No. 8166). In addition, site design elements and activities continue to be influenced by a diverse team of technical experts with whom the Trust consults: Brian Bangs, Fisheries Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Technical assistance- Oregon chub management on site. Bart Faulkner, Hydrologist, USEPA Office of Research and Development (Ada, Oklahoma). Technical assistance- Mapping Hyporheic Flow at Green Island. Ken Forshay, Ecologist, USEPA Office of Research and Development (Ada, Oklahoma). Technical assistance- interactions of surface and groundwater at Green Island. Stan Gregory, Professor of Stream Ecology in the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Oregon State University. He is a principal investigator for the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Consortium and the co-lead of the Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas. Technical assistance and lead on aquatic community monitoring. Jim Houk, Wildlife Refuge Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Technical Assistance- incorporation of CARP into larger Green Island site planning. Bob Houston, Reclamation Specialist, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Permit and reclamation guidance for gravel site. David Hulse, Philip H. Knight Professor and former Chair in Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon and a founding member of the University's Institute for a Sustainable Environment. Technical Assistance- monitoring of restoration project. Jared Jebousek, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Partner Program. Technical assistance – Native plant establishment and planning. Anne Mullan, Biologist, NOAA-NMFS. Technical assistance on endangered species recovery actions. Jim Reed, is principal with the Hydrologic Group, specializing in mapping and GIS consultation. Technical assistance – hydrology, GIS, and LiDAR. Laura Tesler, Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Provides resources and serves as their representative in the development of the Management Plan. Dorie Welch, Fish and Wildlife Project Manager for the Bonneville Power Administration. She brings the resources and expertise of BPA to the project and serves as their representative in the development of the Management Plan.


Jeff Ziller, District Fisheries Biologist for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Technical assistance- salmonid ecology b) Describe the design criteria used or proposed and how those criteria take into consideration natural events and

conditions (e.g., culvert design to 100-year flood event, wood placement to readjust with higher than bankfull flows, cultivation to retain at least 75% stubble, 4-strand fence to allow for wildlife passage, etc.).

Consistent with the overall goal of the Green Island Project, design criteria for activities at all sites are guided by the range of hydrologic and meteorological dynamism that defines the confluence area. Additionally, all proposed restoration sites and actions are identified and discussed in the Green Island Management Plan (Nov 2011); specifically within the following:

Goal One: Hydrology – Enhance natural hydrologic processes on GI including flooding, channel migration, groundwater interaction, and formation of backwater areas to the extent possible.

o Objectives 1a and 1b: Eliminate barriers that currently limit natural floodplain interaction and inundation on Green Island and allow natural channel migration to occur on and around Green Island.

Goal 3: Re-Establish Native Vegetation – Re-establish a diversity of native vegetation communities on agricultural lands and other disturbed areas.

In 2008, the Trust retained DHI Water and Environment to develop an initial Hydraulic Model and technical report for the Green Island complex (Green Island Hydraulic Modeling Technical Report, 2009). This analysis provided a basis for understanding the existing flow and inundation patterns at the site as well as a framework to evaluate restoration scenarios in relation to hydrologic processes. While the model was limited to the input data available at the time (pre-LiDAR); it did offer MRT the opportunity to develop preliminary assessments of potential restoration risks. Regardless of topographic and morphologic alterations, the model did display that high flows like 1996 (24 year interval) and 1964 (100 year interval) nearly inundate the island completely making the effects of the modifications insignificant a those flows.

In 2010, MRT retained the River Design Group to develop conceptual restoration scenarios for the gravel site (Melevin Gravel Pit Ponds Assessment Planning). Consistent with goals and objectives of Green Island, MRT and RDG selected to expand a design based on concept 2. This linear channel feature concept with higher water velocities, greater fringe habitat, improved water quality, and aquatic habitat conditions will be beneficial to native fish species and less hospitable for warm water non-native fish.

Presently, River Design Group is working (with Tetra Tech) to design and evaluate hydraulic risk of the proposed projects (Sites A, B, and C). The modeling builds upon those previous hydraulic assessments and analysis; however current topography (LiDAR data, survey) and 5 years of gauge data at Green Island and in Harrisburg are being utilized to gain the most accurate representation of the site and assess impacts of annual flood events as well as periodic larger events. These assessments will then help determine inundation frequency and duration parameters for CARP, the low water crossing, and the neck, as well as design elements to ensure that these connections are essentially self-maintaining throughout a wide range flood events. The hydrologic assessments will also influence planting plans for both the riparian and upland swale plantings at all four sites.


Greater design specificity will be available for review this summer as the River Design Group engineering and modeling work progresses.

The South Floodplain planting and setback levee removal design is consistent with previous efforts made in the north portion of the island. The scale and the conditions of the site are unique to farm conversion projects. MRT has worked with the USFWS, ODFW and NRCS extensively in the northern portion of the site. MRT has seven years of experience in planting and maintaining large acres of projects. The proposed design takes into consideration not only lessons learned from the site, but also other sites and individuals from around the Willamette Valley.

R6. Design Alternatives

Were alternative designs or solutions considered? (check one) Yes No

If yes, explain why the design or approach proposed was chosen. If no, explain why alternative approaches were

not explored.

As described above, the Melevin Pit Ponds Restoration Alternatives Assessment provided restoration alternatives for site (A).

MRT has worked with the NRCS and private engineers on assessments at the low water crossing for the past four years; however, without the ownership and design of the gravel site, this project was never developed beyond conceptual designs.

Additional landform and neighbor characteristics across the larger complex are contributing to our consideration of scenarios at the 4 sites within this project. The southern tip of Green Island is very dynamic. The property is across from Rogers Bend Revetment (UACOE), adjacent to Wildish Sand & Gravel, and immediately downstream of the confluence of the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. The south western boundary of the site has experienced dramatic alterations over the last few years. The revetments on Green Island are privately owned and in some locations beginning to fail. The extensive network of utilities needed for irrigation during the active restoration period also influences our thinking about the removal and or partial modification of revetments and the access that must be maintained. The middle portion of the property has experienced extensive geomorphic changes recently. The most recent high flow events in 2012 have altered the river even more to the east through a small island. Similarly, the north portion of the island contains utility lines for irrigation in addition to the BPA transmission line, which contains five towers. Future removal and/or modifications of revetments outside the proposed project area will require further analysis.

R7. Proposed Project Schedule Use the table below to show the anticipated schedule for the project. Add or change the list of project elements to

fit your project. See the Application Instructions for clarification and an example.

Project Elements Start Date End Date Description

SITES A, B, C

Community Meeting/Presentation Summer 2012 Present designs to neighbors

Stakeholder Meeting/Presentation Fall 2012 Present design to stakeholders (HTT)

Permit Applications June 2012 Dec 2012 Environmental Compliance permits and Cultural Resource clearance.

Materials Acquisition June 2010 June2013 Partial materials for fill have been acquired


from previous site (A) owner and MRT continues to stage material from dirt work. Other materials include: culverts and materials for low water crossing based on project design

Bid Solicitation/contracting Sept 2012 Dec 2012 Obtain construction management services

Bid Solicitation/contracting Jan 2013 March 2013 Obtain construction services

Project Implementation June 2013 Sept 2015 Construction

Site Planting Sept 2014 March 2015 Site re-vegetation with natives on disturbed areas

Project Inspection June 2013 Oct 2015

Site D

Construction June 2013 Oct 2014 Levee removal

Materials Acquisition -plants Oct 2012 Oct 2015 Plants will be purchased annually for the upcoming planting.

Planting Nov/Dec 2013 March 2016 Planting 50 acres per year, irrigation, mowing

Establishment/Maintenance June 2014 Dec 2015 Spray weeds, mulch trees, mowing

Add rows as needed

R8. Salmon/Steelhead Populations Targeted and Expected Benefits to Salmon/Steelhead The information provided will be used by OWEB to better meet federal and state reporting requirements.

Completion of this section is required but will not be used to evaluate this application for funding.

This project is NOT specifically designed to benefit salmon or steelhead.

► If you check this box, STOP here and GO TO Question R9.

Targeted Salmon/Steelhead Populations: Select one or more of the salmon ESUs (Evolutionary Significant Unit)

or steelhead DPSs (Distinct Population Segment) that the project will address/benefit. For species where the

ESU/DPS name is not known or determined, use the species name with unidentified ESU (e.g., Chinook salmon –

unidentified ESU). Additional information on the designation and location of the salmon/steelhead populations

can be found at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Maps/Index.cfm.

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) Deschutes River summer/fall-run ESU Lower Columbia River ESU

Lower Columbia River ESU Oregon Coast ESU

Mid-Columbia River spring-run ESU Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU

Oregon Coast ESU unidentified ESU

Snake River Fall-run ESU Steelhead (O. mykiss) Snake River Spring/Summer-run ESU Klamath Mountains Province DPS

Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal ESU Lower Columbia River DPS

Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers ESU Middle Columbia River DPS

Upper Willamette River ESU Oregon Coast DPS

unidentified ESU Snake River Basin DPS

Chum Salmon (O. keta) Washington Coast DPS (SW Washington) Columbia River ESU Upper Willamette River DPS Pacific Coast ESU Steelhead/Trout unidentified DPS

unidentified ESU

Expected Benefits: Write a brief description of the goals and purpose of the project and how it is expected to benefit salmon/steelhead or salmon/steelhead habitat. This answer should be no longer than 2000 characters, which is approximately 330 words. See Application Instructions for examples and ideas on how to calculate the number of words or characters in your answer.

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Maps/Index.cfm


Our overall goal is to increase the extent and quality of floodplain habitats in the Green Island complex. Both habitat quality and availability are limited by a history of agriculture and gravel extraction on the complex. Proposed restoration activities at the four sites described here are intended to remove impediments to floodplain connectivity, improve in-stream habitat complexity, and re-establish native riparian, wetland, and upland plant communities. Increased floodplain connectivity will provide significant habitat enhancements for Chinook salmon and other salmonids by creating off-channel habitat, one of the limiting factors for salmon recovery in the Willamette basin. We expect that salmonids as well as other native aquatic species will benefit from better ingress and egress during high water, more complexity of in-stream habitats, fewer non-native predators, and the long-term habitat forming processes of a more dynamic off-channel system.

R9. Project Relationship to Regional Priorities If the project specifically implements a plan or larger conservation effort, identify the effort and the specific role

of this project. Explain whether the project implements a regional plan (e.g., ESA Recovery Plan, Coastal Coho

Assessment, NWPCC Subbasin Plan, Groundwater Management Area). Specifically identify the relationship

between the proposed project and the OWEB Basin Priorities. Priorities can be found on the OWEB website at:

www.oregon.gov/OWEB/restoration_priorities.shtml. (See the Application Instructions for helpful links to

various regional plans.)

The proposed project implements the following ecological objectives established by the Willamette Special Investment Partnership (2008):

Channel and Floodplain Restoration

Aggregate Site Reclamation to reconnect floodplain and complex channels

Edge Habitat Restoration to reconnect floodplain habitats In 2005, the United States National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) reported to the U.S. Congress that decreased juvenile salmonid access to rearing habitats was one of five limiting factors to the recovery of salmon in the region (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm). The Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) has singled out the lower McKenzie River and confluence area as a focus for restoration and protection of just such rearing habitats (Willamette Subbasin Summary 2002, p.143). The McKenzie Watershed Council’s biological assessment of the McKenzie-Willamette confluence area (2000) highlighted the specific conservation and restoration opportunities at the site. NMFS most recently reported that the Upper Willamette River Chinook is currently at a high risk of extinction (2008 Willamette Project Biological Opinion Executive Summary, pg. 7). The reduced access to off-channel habitat and reduced floodplain function and connectivity were again identified as limiting factors to the recovery of Upper Willamette River Chinook (NMFS, Willamette Project Biological Opinion July 2008; NMFS and State of Oregon, Upper Willamette River Conservation & Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon & Steelhead, August 2011).

R10. List each component or activity of the project that requires a permit(s) and/or license(s) from a

local, state or federal agency or governing body. Use the table provided to list the activities and permit(s)/license(s) including the entity issuing the permit(s)/license(s). Every project will vary in the number and types of permits and licenses needed. In Column 1 and in separate rows, list the project activities requiring a permit or license. In Column 2, provide the name of the permit or license. In Column 3, provide the name of the entity issuing the permit or license. See Application

Instructions pages 9-11 for clarification and examples before completing the table.

Project Activity Requiring a Permit or License Name Entity Issuing Permit or License

http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/restoration_priorities.shtml


Permit/License

All work within waters of the United States

Section 404 (NWP #27 Habitat Restoration)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

In-stream work Endangered Species Act Consultation

USFWS / NOAA

Dirt work in floodplain Fill/Removal Permit Oregon Department of State Lands

Dirt work with sedimentation risk to waters of the state

1200-C Water Quality Certification Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Enhancement of low water crossing, CARP reclamation, and neck reconnection

Fish Passage Approval Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

All work within high water mark No-Rise Certification Lane County Planning approval -

Earth moving A wetland delineation at construction areas

Certified consultant

All activities Biological Assessment USFWS

All soil disturbance Cultural Resources Inventory Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

CARP site reclamation Reclamation Plan Amendment DOGAMI approval

R11. Project Relationship to Watershed Processes and Functions The restoration and protection of natural watershed process is the foundation of achieving watershed health. Since

natural watershed processes have been eliminated, altered or reduced in many areas, habitat restoration activities are

the primary method for reintroducing the necessary functions to watersheds that have been altered due to past

management practices and/or disturbance events. Restoration activities are intended to address the watershed

functions necessary to support natural processes that are indicative of healthy watersheds. This includes, but is not

limited to improving water quality, water quantity, habitat complexity, flood plain interaction, vegetation structure,

and species diversity.

OWEB wants to be able to track how restoration projects are addressing watershed process and function. Please check

all the boxes below that apply to your restoration project. You may add narrative in addition to checking the boxes.

Project Element Narrative

Stream complexity Conversion of CARP ponds to more shallow, linear side channel; increased frequency or duration of flooding with neck and low water crossing enhancements

Riparian vegetation structure Re-vegetation of CARP area; conversion of 195 acres of agricultural fields in the south (Site D)

Species diversity Decreased habitat suitability for non- native warm water aquatic species

Vegetative ground cover Disturbed areas are prone to weed infestation. Native grasses will be planted following ground disturbance activities.

Floodplain connectivity Overall goal

Species migration patterns Better ingress and egress for aquatic habitats in old McKenzie Channel

Sediment transport Linear features at CARP and improved low water crossing will reduce accumulation of sediments and establishment of reed canary grass

Nutrient cycling Current research by EPA provides a baseline on nutrient cycling; post-restoration assessments will contribute greatly to the science of nutrient cycling in dynamic floodplain systems

Water quality

Water quantity

Water storage

Hydrologic cycle

Other (please describe) Our understanding of each of the four elements noted above also benefit from the pre-restoration baseline assessment work that is being conducted by partners. Post-


restoration assessments will advance our understanding of floodplain processes and their attendant ecosystem service benefits.

R12. Other Related Conservation Actions

a) Explain how the project complements other efforts under way or completed in the watershed. Identify other

restoration, technical assistance, monitoring, assessment or outreach projects, conservation actions and

ecological protection efforts in the watershed and explain how this project relates to those actions.

The restoration actions completed, on-going, and proposed on Green Island are significant in Upper Willamette Basin. Other projects in the early stages of planning and restoration such as Willamette Confluence and Harkens Lake will benefit from the lessons learned by actions taken on Green Island. Since acquired, MRT has continued to grow the partnership base for the project and utilize the site for outreach, research, and educational purposes. In addition, the base we have established at Green island has allowed the Trust and other conservation partners such as the Long Tom Watershed Council and Oregon State Parks, to reach out to mainstem Willamette landowners interested in conservation actions and incentives provided by the SIP.

If the project is a continuation of previously completed activities, describe the results of the previous project(s)

and identify what you have learned from the implementation of similar project(s).

Since 2007, other levees and earth berms have been removed to promote floodplain connectivity at Green Island. An alcove restoration project involving channel grading, plant establishment, and channel reconnection was completed in 2008. With annual high flows, inundation of the floodplain occurs more frequently and provides important backwater/off-channel habitat. MRT has learned about weed management from ground disturbance and effective plant establishment techniques in recently disturbed areas.

See Plant Establishment Section for floodplain planting information

R13. Project Inspection Identify who will inspect and sign off on the completed project.

Name of Person &

Agency/Organization Telephone

Number

Email Address Project Element Inspected

Chris Vogel, MRT 541-345-2799 [email protected] All elements

Multiple partners

Add rows as needed

R14. Outreach

If your project proposal includes outreach activities (e.g., a site tour for local citizens, landowner meetings,

informational materials), please describe the proposed activities and products and why they are necessary for the

mailto:[email protected]


overall success of the restoration proposal. See the Application Instructions for clarification of eligible outreach

costs.

Regional review teams will evaluate the appropriateness of proposed outreach activities with respect to their necessity

for success of the restoration project, budget, and other factors.

Since acquiring Green Island, the McKenzie River Trust has made a concerted effort to use the property for outreach events that give participants the opportunity to learn about river dynamism. Throughout the proposed project we will continue that approach and we will also be increasing or outreach efforts with the immediate neighbors, some of whom may be concerned about channel manipulations and potential risks of flooding. We are not requesting funds for outreach activities in this grant application, but do consider it integral to the overall success of the project.

R15. Project Maintenance and Reporting Use the table below to document how the project will be maintained over time. State who will maintain the project.

Identify their affiliation and provide contact information. In addition, please indicate who will conduct Post-

Implementation Status Reporting following project completion.

Name of Person &

Agency/Organization and Addresses

Telephone Number

Email Address What will be done and for how long?

McKenzie River Trust 541-345-2799 [email protected]

As owner of the property, McKenzie River Trust has incorporated Green Island into its long term land management strategy development. For the period of restoration, we will be the lead on all aspects of project implementation, site management, and reporting. At the same time we have begun discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State Parks, and other organizations that ultimately may be in a better position to manage the site for its conservation purpose and public values in the future.

Add rows as needed

R16. Budget Development There are a number of assumptions used to develop any budget. This does not mean you must provide a line by line

description of costs. Use this response to provide a clear understanding of what the budget estimate was based on.

a) Explain how costs were determined for the budget elements. Describe if contractor conversations, past projects or

other cost figures were used for each major element of the budget. This is particularly important for lump sum

elements in the budget. For project management costs describe the time and activities that would be involved.

Project Management- project management estimates are based on estimates provided in the Melevin Gravel Pit Ponds Assessment Planning report and on estimated costs associated with the current project design contract with River Design Group.

In-house personnel- these estimates are based on MRT staff salary rates and an assumption of an average 0.5 FTE annually attributable to this project for the next three years.

Contracted services- based on established working relationships with contractors for earth moving, planting, irrigation, and other activities currently practiced at Green Island

Supplies/Materials- based on projects with similar elements completed to date at Green Island


Plant Establishment- based on MRT experience at Green Island, comparisons with other partners in the region (e.g. Delta Ponds), and observations of work completed by River Partners in central California.

Admin and Reporting- based on MRT experience administering and reporting on prior wards form OWEB.

b) If there are any unusual cost factors, explain them. For example, if the fencing costs are unusually high because of

steep, rocky terrain and unroaded access, this is the place to explain the cost elements on the budget page.

As noted throughout our application, cost estimates for earth work and other large expenditures will depend on final designs chosen for reconnection of the CARP ponds, reconnection at the neck, and enhancement of the low water crossing. All of these design features are still to be determined in the current contract between McKenzie River Trust and River Design Group. Although we are confident that our estimates associated with these actions are within a reasonable range of costs based on prior experience, the Melevin Ponds Assessment estimates, and on-going conversations with RDG, unusual cost factors could arise if unanticipated actions are recommended in the final designs.

R17. Effectiveness Monitoring. If you plan to conduct Effectiveness Monitoring beyond post-implementation

status reporting and you are requesting more than $3,500 in OWEB funds to support these EM activities, complete the R17 Effectiveness Monitoring Application Insert, print it out and add after Question R16. See the R17 Effectiveness Monitoring Insert Instructions for clarification.

R18. Planting Activities. If you are proposing a Riparian, Upland or Wetland Planting activities and you are

requesting more than $3,500 in OWEB funds for planting activities and/or for post-planting activities that are necessary for long-term survival of the plantings, you must complete the R18 Planting Activities Insert, print it out and add after Question R17 or R18 as appropriate. Please see the definition of “plant establishment activities” in R18. If you are asking for $3,500 or less, you may answer the questions if you would like the reviewers to have additional information on the planting component of the project. See the R18 Planting Activities Application Insert Instructions for clarification.

2011-13 OWEB Planting Activities Insert - Section I – April 2012 Page 3

Section I

R18. PLANTING ACTIVITIES

You must complete R18 Section I if: 1) Your Restoration application includes riparian, upland or wetland

planting activities; and 2) You are requesting more than $3,500 in OWEB funds for the planting and/or plant

establishment activities. If you are requesting $3,500 or less in OWEB funds for planting, OWEB encourages

you to complete this section to provide reviewers with additional information on the planting component of the

project. You are not required to complete this section if you are doing broadcast seeding or rangeland drilling.

P1 a) Describe the condition of the site(s) to be planted and site preparation activities that will be

completed prior to planting. Explain the reasons you chose this approach to site preparation.

Discuss any special conditions involved at the site (e.g., beaver, elk or other animal predation;

invasive weeds or overstory competition issues; slope, soil type, climatic regime).

Site A: Gravel Ponds – Vegetation of this site will be performed post-earthwork. The planting prescription will be developed based on the amount of area, habitat type, and frequency of inundation. The planting prescription will be completed as a component of the final restoration design by River Design Group. Due to the nature of the site, soil amendment may be used in areas where needed (e.g. rocky). Beaver and nutria are on site and protection will be associated with plants that are subject to extensive damage.

Site B: Low water crossing – Vegetation of this area will be performed post-earthwork and be limited to

disturbed areas. The planting prescription will be developed based on the amount of area, habitat type, and frequency of inundation. This prescription will be completed as a component of the final restoration design by River Design Group.

Site C: Neck - Vegetation of this area will be performed post-earthwork and be limited to disturbed areas. The

planting prescription will be developed based on the amount of area, habitat type, and frequency of inundation. This prescription will be completed as a component of the final restoration design by River Design Group.

Site D: South Floodplain - At present, 70 acres out of 195 acres in the agriculture field acres are in the first

grow year with native grasses (Spike Bentgrass, Roemer’s Fescue, Annual Hairgrass, and Slender Hairgrass). Preparation for tree planting will include a late summer mow (2013), and a late fall (and early winter, if needed) herbicide strip spray (four foot wide) for the tree rows. The herbicide strip spray will assist in limiting moisture and nutrient competition, vole habitat and damage to trees, and establishing clearly delineated rows which will aid in planting and establishment activities (e.g. mowing and irrigating).

The remaining 125 acres is in corn production through late summer/early fall 2012. Due to the nature

of the crop, native grasses will be planted (fall 2012) prior to tree planting. Preparation activities for seed drilling includes: flail mowing stubble, disking, harrowing, rolling, and herbicide treatment. Depending on the broad leaf weeds present, herbicide treatments may be required prior to tree planting. These activities were successfully completed in fall 2011 on the 70 acres now in native grasses. With the presence of emergent herbicide and corn residual biomass, the following steps for field preparation are deemed necessary for the establishment of the understory grasses. Preparation


for tree planting will include a late summer mow, and late fall (and early winter, if needed) herbicide strip spray in the tree rows.

The conversion approach we are proposing is based on our experience in the north of GI,

consultations with the lessee farmer, consultations with private contractors working in the Willamette Valley, and staff from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Finley Wildlife Refuge.

b) If this project is part of an ongoing riparian restoration program or continues a previously funded

riparian project, discuss past project results and what you have learned from those projects

that helped you in developing this proposal.

From 2006 - 2011, 125 acres of agriculture fields have been planted with trees on Green Island. At this scale and having experience with many variables such as plant material (species and stock size), soil conditions, plant timing (late fall vs. mid winter), planting technique (holes pre-drilled weeks in advanced vs. drilled and planted), labor (contract vs. volunteer), site ground cover, irrigation, mow timing, and protection techniques; MRT continues to adapt and modify planting and establishment techniques to ensure the success of plantings.

Ground cover Thirty of 125 acres were planted with native grasses prior to planting due to prior crop (i.e. wheat and

corn). In the remaining 95 acres, trees were planted directly into the existing ground vegetation (annual rye grass, perennial ryegrass, and tall fescue). Recommended by USFWS, this method was cost effective, and provided a temporary weed free site (albeit non-native). The disadvantages have been the increasing weed infestation (blackberry, reed canary, thistle, and tansy) as the fields loose vigor and the large non-native grass habitat. Additionally, the vole population, which was controlled with bait prior to MRT restoration actions, has increased dramatically, resulting in mortality of young trees.

Plant Stock In 2006, the USFWS planted bare root cottonwoods with a tractor mounted ripper. The survival was

poor <5%, thus planting in subsequent years has been one gallon container stock. Due to soil type and conditions, exposure, and grass competition; bare root planting (deciduous trees) has not been utilized on the site. Bare root and plug conifers have been used in soil rich areas with high establishment techniques (mulch mats, browse protection, and moisture retention material) with high success. In general, one gallon container stock has proven to have a much higher success throughout the site. Even with the appearance of mortality, the more robust root structure combined with soil and plant amendments of container stock, often results in a stem sprout seasons later. In 2012, a 1500 ft hedge row of bare root Oregon grape, nootka rose, and spirea was planted to a failing rye grass crop. It will be bark mulched for moisture control. MRT plans to monitor the survival and evaluate the potential for bare root shrub plantings without water.

Early plantings (2006 and 2007) followed species and percentage guidelines provided by Bruce Newhouse, of Salix Associates, who completed the Inventory and Assessment of Vegetation, and Restoration, and Management Recommendations (2005). Some deviation has occurred based on limitations in plant availability, site conditions, and location. The following table displays the planting percentages over time.


%

Common Name Latin Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa

35 35 40 40 35 25

Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum

20 20 23 23 31 40

Red Alder Alnus rubra 10 10 15 15 20 9

Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 15 15 5 5 3 2

White Alder Alnus rhombifolia 5 5 13 13 1 1

Western Red cedar Thuja plicata 5 5 .5 .5 6 2

Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 5 5 .5 .5 1 10

Grand Fir Abies grandis 1 1 3 2 1 10

Mixed riparian shrubs

4 4 1 2 1

Planting Specs/Technique The layout for the field plantings were recommended by USFWS. They are a basic grid of rows spaced

11ft with trees 15ft apart (250 trees per acre). This has proven to be an effective method for mowing and irrigation needs. Holes have been drilled with ground based equipment (Bobcat), hand augers, and shovels. Drilling proves to be fast and efficient for one gallon container stock. Swales in the north were not planted with trees per USFWS design.

MRT successfully completed early plantings with large volunteer efforts. These planting events

provided great outreach opportunities and labor, but the logistics before and during proved less attainable for future plantings. MRT has continued to provide volunteer plantings at a much smaller scale.

Establishment/Maintenance The 2006-2009 tree plantings were planted in rye grass and establishment/maintenance activities

consisted of a summer mow and summer irrigation (for two seasons) with hand line. The 2010 planting, which was planted into tall fescue grass was planted without browse protection or mulching. Due to the robust growth fescue grass, multiple mowing (2-3 times), plus weedeating around trees was required during the first spring/summer. With the explosion of the vole population on Green Island and high mortality to the 2009 and 2010 trees, all surviving trees in the 2010 unit were installed with browse guards, hand grubbed and bark mulched in 2011. This technique has proven to limit vole damage and competition for moisture and nutrients. A spring herbicide spray around trees was completed to reduce fescue encroachment and competition.

The 2011 planting prescription incorporated a moisture control solution (TerraSorb), mulch mats, and

4” plastic vole guards. Mowing was conducted 2x during the first growing year and big game repellent was applied in the spring and fall. A spring herbicide spray around trees was completed to reduce grass encroachment and competition.


Watering of trees is typically 2 years with surface irrigation (aluminum hand line and wheel cannons). Although ample water is available on site through multiple wells and subsurface lines, irrigation has been subject to many inconsistences. MRT has worked with the current farm lessee for irrigation services since 2006. They have provided aluminum hand line, wheel guns, pumps, maintenance, and labor. Members of their irrigation crew have been working on Green Island for over 25 years and are extremely knowledgeable about the pumps, subsurface pipe layout, and soil permeable rates of the fields. The difficulty has come in needing water on too many acres at once with limited equipment and labor. MRT has made efforts since 2009 to limit the irrigation acres and retain some irrigation equipment (i.e. pumps, pipe, and wheel gun), which has helped. MRT has also started irrigating earlier and longer in the season, which appears to help. MRT has explored other methods of irrigation with the NRCS and irrigation professionals. Based on the existing infrastructure on site and the limited duration of need (2-5 years), converting and installing another system has been deemed cost prohibitive.

Deer and voles are sources of mortality and damage for trees in the north portion of the island. The

population of voles on Green Island is significant and continues to expand as agriculture acres are taken out of production (more seed is available and baiting is not used by MRT). Voles appear to move into new areas very quickly once any type of grass is established. Since 2010, MRT has utilized a variety of methods to limit vole damage ranging from: mowing/weedeating around trees, installing custom made plastic 4 inch plastic guards to grubbing and bark mulching around trees. It appears that bark mulch is not a material that voles burrow through or traverse to girdle trees. Mowing/weedeating proves to have little impact minimizing vole damage.

Deer browse is the hardest on plants during leaf out and during the fall rut. Over the last few years,

more bucks have been observed using planted trees for rubbings. MRT has utilized big game repellant (BGR), Plantskyyd, during the spring and fall rut with some success (weather dependent).

P2 Provide detailed information on the plants, planting locations, and planting techniques at the

site(s). Including a diagram and one or two representative site prescriptions would be helpful to

reviewers. Explain why you are taking this approach at the site and include information on:

a) Number and species to be planted; b) Plants per acre; c) Location of plantings; d) Size (age class) of planting stock; e) Type of stock (Rooted, bare root, or cuttings); f) Month(s) of plantings; and g) Protective devices/strategies to be used or vegetation competition and/or animal predation.

Site D – South Floodplain

Due to status of the understory grasses, and irrigation and maintenance needs of the plantings, approximately 50 acres will be planted annually. Plantings will be in a similar grid pattern and species composition to that of the north island; however, swales will be planted with trees (Oregon ash, alder, and cottonwood).

Based on the 11 foot by 15 foot grid layout, approximately 250 trees per acre will be planted. Due to power line right-of-ways approximately 46,000 one gal container stock will be planted. Timing of planting will follow moist soil conditions, typically Dec –March. Species type and percentages will be


similar to the 2006-2011 plantings. Browse protection will be installed on all deciduous trees. Protection, particularly tubes, is effective in reducing animal damage, protection from herbicide, and increasing growing conditions.

P3 a) Provide a general plan for your proposed plant establishment activities that covers 3-5 years

after the plantings are installed. Include a schedule with information on how frequently the

site(s) will be visited, the type of invasive species and animal damage control that will be

implemented, the type of weather protection measures that will be implemented, and the

watering or irrigation plans that will be considered.

The site will be visited weekly throughout the year. Routine inspection of broadleaf weeds will be conducted throughout the growing season and herbicide treatments will be utilized as necessary. Irrigation of trees will typically start mid to late June and extend through September. Irrigation will be used on trees for a minimum of 2 years. Due to the infrastructure and layout already in place (subsurface pipe and risers), irrigation will be conducted with the use of traveling wheel guns. Bark mulching post irrigation (2 year) will assist in moisture control.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Spring Spray around trees as needed Spray broadleaf in grass as needed

Spray around trees as needed Spray broadleaf in grass as needed

Bark mulch around trees

Spray over bark mulch/ around trees as needed

Summer Irrigate June – Sept Mow rows

Irrigate June – Sept Mow rows

Irrigate as needed Mow rows

Mow rows Mow rows

Fall

BGR as needed

BGR as needed

Winter Spray around trees as needed

Spray around trees as needed



b) If you are not asking for OWEB funds for plant establishment activities, explain how you plan

to carry out activities to help the plantings survive and grow over time.

c) If no plant establishment activity is planned, explain why.

P4 Explain how you will document and determine success for the plantings. If, in the course of the

3-5 years following planting, the success rate falls below your standard, what is your plan?

Permanent photo points will be established to monitor the site over time. Survival estimates have been conducted by MRT on a bi-yearly basis in addition to fix radius plots. MRT plans to follow these methods in the south. Should survival be deemed too low and the cause of mortality clearly


determined, replanting may be selected as an option. However, it is recommended that planting efforts in the north portion of the island (understory and swales) be focused on first given the non-native ground cover (grasses) and establish trees that are present.

P5 Provide the name and contact information for the people who will be working on the various

planting phases, if known.


Project Element Name of Person &

Agency/Organization Telephone Number and Email Address

Project management Chris Vogel 541-345-2799 [email protected]

Planting site preparation Chris Vogel 541-345-2799 [email protected]

Planting Chris Vogel 541-345-2799 [email protected]

Plant establishment activities (e.g., post-planting, ongoing weed control, animal control, inspections, watering or irrigation, etc.)

Chris Vogel 541-345-2799 [email protected]

SITE D Only - Floodplain Planting Totals automatically round to the nearest dollar

A B C D E FItemize projected costs under each of the following categories.

Unit Number UnitCost

In-Kind Match

Cash MatchFunds

OWEBFunds

Total Costs

(e.g., # of hours) (e.g., hourly rate)

(add columns C, D, E)

000

0 0 0 0

MRT Project Manager 2080 hrs $40/hr 83,20000

0 0 0 83,200

MRT Stew Tech 2080 hrs $30/hr 62,4000

0 0 0 62,400

Field prep for seed planting 125 acres $40/acre 5,000Custom No-till planting 125 acres $84/acre 10,500Spray services (tree establishment) 195 acres $45/acre 8,755Irrigation Yr 1 (50 acres)

Yr 2 (100 acres) Yr 3 (100 acres) Yr 4 (100 acres) Yr 4 (50 acres)

$55/acre (4X/year)

66,000

Maintenance mowing Yr 1 (70 acres) Yr 2 (195 acres)

$55/acre 14,575

Tree Planting 46000 trees $2.50/tree 115,000

0 0 0 219,830

MRT mileage to site 8440 .555/mi 4,6840

0 0 0 4,684

Native Trees 46000 trees $3/tree 138,000Browse protection (trees not in swales) 30000 trees $1.4/tree 42,000

Mulch (60% post 2 irrigation) 27600 trees $5/tree 138,000Native grasses 1000 lbs $14/acre 0 0 0 14,000

0 0 0 332,000

PRE-IMPLEMENTATION. Must occur after the OWEB grant agreement has been fully executed, unless it is a city or county charge for processing the Land Use form. OWEB funds will not be disbursed for project components requiring permits or licenses until those permits and licenses have been received by OWEB. However, funds may be released for non-permitted project components whose implementation is not affected by the required permits.

SUBTOTAL (1)PROJECT MANAGEMENT. Includes actual in-house staff or contractors who coordinate project implementation. Line items should identify who will be responsible for project management and their affiliation.

SUBTOTAL (2)

EQUIPMENT. List equipment costing $250 or more per unit. Useful life of equipment is for the duration of project and will be used only for this project. Identify any portable equipment (items with useful life of generally 2 years or more). Must be property of a governmental entity, tribe, watershed council, SWCD, institution of higher learning or school district

SUBTOTAL (3)CONTRACTED SERVICES. Labor, supplies, and materials to be provided by non-staff for project implementation.

SUBTOTAL (4)

IN-HOUSE PERSONNEL. Includes only actual in-house staff costs for project implementation.

SUBTOTAL (5)

TRAVEL. Mileage, per diem, lodging, etc. Must use current State of Oregon rate.

SUPPLIES/MATERIALS. Refers to items that are “used up” in the course of the project. Costs to OWEB must be directly related to on-the-ground work.

Section IVWATERSHED RESTORATION BUDGET

IMPORTANT: Read the application instructions. Add additional lines, if necessary.

SUBTOTAL (6)

2011-13 OWEB Watershed Restoration Application - Section IV - April 2012 Page 1

A B C D E FItemize projected costs under each of the following categories.

Unit Number UnitCost

In-Kind Match

Cash MatchFunds

OWEBFunds

Total Costs

(e.g., # of hours) (e.g., hourly rate)

(add columns C, D, E)

0

0

0 0 0 0

/yr 1,000/yr 0

0 0 0 1,000

0 0 0 1,000

RESTORATION BUDGET TOTAL *Totals automatically round to the nearest dollar

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING BUDGET TOTAL

PLANT ESTABLISHMENT BUDGET TOTAL

PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL *Totals automatically round to the nearest dollar

0

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING BUDGET TOTAL (14)

RESTORATION BUDGET TOTAL (13) [Add Category Totals (9) and Fiscal/PISR Total (12) from above]

SUBTOTAL (11)

0

FISCAL ADMINISTRATION *Totals automatically round to the nearest dollar

703,114

SUBTOTAL (10)

0 0

PLANT ESTABLISHMENT BUDGET TOTAL (15)

0

0

FISCAL ADMIN. Not to exceed 10% of Category Totals (9) Funds . Compute by multiplying by 0.10 or less. Costs associated with accounting; auditing (fiscal management); contract management (complying with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement); and fiscal reporting expenses for the OWEB project, including final report expenses (e.g., film developing) for the grant.

0

703,114[Add (13), (14), AND (15) as applicable]PROJECT BUDGET TOTAL

0 0 0

0 0

[Add the two Subtotals (10 & 11)] TOTAL (12)

0

This only applies if you are doing Effectiveness Monitoring; see Application Instructions and R17. Transfer Budget Total (11) from the Effectiveness

Monitoring Budget Insert.

0

This only applies if you are doing a planting project; see Application Instructions and R18. Transfer Budget Total (9) from the Plant Establishment Budget Insert.

POST-IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORTING. Costs associated with annual reporting requirements typically required for each grant (see Application Instructions).

2011-13 OWEB Watershed Restoration Application - Section IV - April 2012 Page 3

McKenzie River Trust | Green Is land

McKenzie River

Willamet te River

Green Island

¯0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.1Miles

Project ACARP - gravel site

Project CNeck - levee Project B

Low water crossing

Project DSet back levee

historic McKenzie River channel

historic McKenzie River channel

ACOE Revetment

Private Revetment

Private Setback Levee

Project DSouth IslandFloodplain

Aerial: USDA-FSA 2011

Department of Fish and Wildlife Corvallis Research Lab 28655 Hwy. 34 Corvallis, OR 97333 (541) 757-4263 FAX (541) 757-4102 Internet www.dfw.state.or.us http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/crl/

Oregon John A. Kitzhaber., Governor

26 April 2012

Ken Bierly

Senior Partnerships Coordinator

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

775 Summer Street NE, Suite 369

Salem, OR 97301-1290

Dear Ken,

On behalf of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, I am submitting this letter in support

of the McKenzie River Trust’s proposed Green Island gravel pond restoration and reconnection.

This 1,060-acre site owned by McKenzie River Trust provides excellent ecological potential and

substantial restoration opportunities for restoring rare Willamette Valley floodplain habitats

including, backwater sloughs, forested wetland and riparian habitats. Oregon chub were

discovered in this site in 2007, and this site supports the only population of the threatened

minnow in the floodplain of the mainstem Willamette River. Spring Chinook are abundant at

this site, and much of the habitat is suitable rearing habitat and as refuge during high flows. The

proposed restoration activities will increase the connectivity of a restored aggregate site, to

increase the historic meander and increase the channel complexity of the historic McKenzie side

channel. By increasing the flow through this habitat, they will likely lower summer

temperatures, and create environmental conditions that will favor native over nonnative species.

This will have a direct benefit to the Oregon chub population downstream of the proposed

project activities by eliminating a source of nonnative fishes.

The McKenzie River Trust has been a partner in the recovery of Oregon chub. We have

documented many thriving Oregon chub populations on properties managed by the trust, and

they continue to enhance these populations through their management and restoration actions.

We strongly support the proposed work of the McKenzie River Trust in restoring and enhancing

these valuable habitats on this property.

Sincerely,

Brian Bangs

Native Fish Investigations – Oregon chub

Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

28655 Hwy 34, Corvallis OR, 97333

2011-13 OWEB Restoration Application – Attachment D – April 2012 Page 1

ATTACHMENT D

RESTORATION METRICS FORM

OWEB receives a portion of its funds from the federal government and is required to report how its grantees have used both federal and state funds. The information you provide in the following form will be used for federal and state reporting purposes.

Please complete all portions of the form below as they apply to your project and submit all pages (do not exclude any pages). Please provide specific values, do not enter values like ―2-3‖ or ―<100‖. Enter your best approximation of what the project will accomplish.

If you have any questions, please contact Cecilia Noyes, OWEB Performance Analyst/Reporting Specialist at 503-986-0204 or [email protected] .

Section 1 - Project Overview Answer all five questions below, even if you have answered a similar question in a previous section in the grant application.

1. Land Use Setting: CHECK ONE BOX ONLY.

Urban/Suburban/Exurban (Projects located within urban growth boundaries or rural residential areas)

Rural (Projects located outside urban growth boundaries or rural residential areas.)

2. Dominant Watershed Setting: CHECK ONE BOX ONLY. Example: Your project involves managing erosion in the upland area with some erosion control extended to the riparian area. Because most of the work is to occur in the upland area, you would check only the Upland box below.

Estuary (where freshwater meets and mixes with saltwater of ocean tides.)

Riparian (adjacent to a water body, within the active floodplain.)

Instream (below the ordinary high-water mark or within the active channel — includes fish passage.)

Upland (above the floodplain.)

Groundwater (Projects that recharge groundwater or primarily affect the subsurface water table.)

Wetland (areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

3. Total Acres Treated:227 Total Stream Miles Treated:4 (do not include upstream stream miles made accessible

to fish with passage improvements)

4. Project Identified in Plan or Watershed Assessment: List the primary watershed/subbasin plan(s) or assessment(s)

in which this project type is identified as a priority. The plans identified in Section III, question #R9 should include the

plans or assessments listed below. Attach additional page, if needed.

Title Author(s) Date

Willamette Project Biological Opinion NMFS 2008

Green Island Management Plan MRT/LCOG 2011

Upper Willamette River Conservation and Recovery

Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead ODFW & NMFS 2011

mailto:[email protected]


5. Project Monitoring: All OWEB funded restoration projects require post-implementation status reporting including photo

point monitoring. Please indicate below: 1) the location of the monitoring activities relative to the project, including photo

point locations, 2) whether effectiveness monitoring is planned, and 3) whether additional monitoring will be conducted for

this project. 5.1) Identify the location for the planned monitoring activities relative to the restoration project location. Check as many

boxes as apply.

Onsite Downstream Upstream Upslope

5.2) Effectiveness monitoring will be conducted for this project, this can be selected regardless of whether the

effectiveness monitoring is funded by OWEB (refer to definition of effectiveness monitoring in the Application Instructions under R16).

5.3) Will this project conduct monitoring activities beyond the required post-implementation status reporting and photo point

monitoring?

Yes No If you answer yes, select the monitoring activities below, if you answer no proceed to Section 2.

Check all proposed monitoring activities

Adult Fish presence/absence/abundance/distribution survey(s) Spawning surveys

Juvenile Fish presence/absence/abundance/distribution survey(s) Upland vegetation (Presence/Absence)

Instream Habitat surveys Water quality

Macroinvertebrates Water quantity

Noxious weed (Presence/Absence) Other (explain):

Riparian vegetation (Presence/Absence)

Section 2 - Project Activities Provide values for each Project Activity applicable to your application. Leave blank any Project Activity or metric line that is not appropriate to your application. All data entered in this form should be what you plan to do with the project. Data about completed projects will be reported at the end of the project to the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). For each activity type where you enter metrics, estimate the percentage of the total cost of the project (OWEB and all other funding sources, shown on page 1 of this application) that applies to the activity. The sum of all of the activity cost percentages should equal 100%. Please distribute all administrative, project management and other general project costs among the various project activities when estimating percentages. Example: A project will remove a fish passage barrier, place large boulders instream, and plant a riparian buffer. You would enter the appropriate metrics into the Fish Passage, Instream Habitat, and Riparian Habitat activity sections of this form. Then, estimate the percentage of the total cost of the project for each activity. For instance: 20% towards Fish Passage activities, 25% towards Instream Habitat activities, and 55% towards Riparian Habitat activities.

Fish Screening Projects: Projects that result in the installation or improvement of screening systems that prevent fish from passing into areas that do not support fish survival, for example into irrigation diversion channels.

% Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to fish screening activities

# Estimate the number of irrigation diversions with new screens installed (do not count diversions where existing screens

are replaced)

cfs Estimate the cubic feet per second of flow influenced by new screen(s) installed (to nearest 0.01 cfs)

# Estimate the number of irrigation diversions with existing screens replaced, repaired or modified


Fish Passage Improvement: Projects that improve fish migration by addressing a migration barrier problem.

Complete sections A-E as they apply to the proposed project. Projects that improve fish passage at road crossings should complete both sections A (define the problem) and B (define the treatment). Non-road crossing improvements are reported in sections C and D. Section E should be completed for all fish passage improvement projects. Refer to the application instructions for additional information and examples.

A. Road Crossings – Define Existing Fish Passage Problem

1. Culverts hindering fish passage # crossings

2. Bridges hindering fish passage # crossings

3. Fords hindering fish passage 1 # crossings

B. Road Crossings – Define the Fish Passage Improvements to be implemented by this project

1. Culverts installed/improved - Improvements may include installing baffles inside culverts or installing/improving engineered bypasses (e.g. weirs) directly below a culvert outlet to improve passage.

1 # crossings 4 str. mi with improved access*

2. Bridges installed/improved - Improvements may include installing/improving engineered bypasses (e.g. weirs) directly below a bridge crossing to improve passage.

# crossings str. mi with improved access*

3. Fords installed/improved 1 # crossings 4 str. mi with improved access*

4. Road Crossings removed and not replaced # crossings str. mi with improved access*

*Estimate stream miles in the main channel and tributaries made more accessible above the crossing(s) (to nearest 0.01 mile). If a barrier exists upstream, report the length made accessible up to that next upstream barrier.

C. Fish Passage Barriers – Other than Road Crossings

1. Type(s) of barriers to be treated/removed to improve fish passage.

Diversion Dam

Push-up Dam

Wood or Concrete Dam

Weir (not associated with a road crossing)

Logs

Debris

Tidegates

Other (explain) gravel pond impoundment berms

D. Fish Ladders or Engineered Bypasses (not associated with Road Crossings)

1. Fish ladders will be installed/improved # fish ladders to be installed/improved

2. Engineered bypasses will be installed/improved. This includes weirs, rock boulder step pools, and chutes constructed/roughened in bed rock. Do not count engineered bypasses located at a road crossing to improve passage at the crossing. These types of improvements should be identified above in section B as a Road Crossing Fish Passage Improvement.

# engineered bypasses to be installed/improved

E. Fish Passage Summary Metrics

1. 30 % Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to fish passage improvements

2. 4 mi Estimate the total stream miles that will be made more accessible in the main channel and tributaries above

the project (to nearest 0.01 mile). This metric summarizes the stream miles for all of the proposed passage

improvements (defined above in Sections A-D). If a barrier exists upstream of the project, report the length

made accessible up to that next upstream barrier.

3. 3 # Estimate the total number of barriers (this includes road crossings, diversion dams, push up dams, wood or

concrete dams, weirs, tidegates, etc.) to be removed or altered to improve passage.

4. % Estimate the percentage of fish passage activity costs applied to tidegates. If you do not select tidegate as a type of

fish passage barrier for question C.1, leave this value blank. Example: Your project will remove a tidegate. You

estimated that 100% of the total project cost will apply to fish passage improvements and one quarter of the fish

passage improvements costs will apply to the tidegate removal, you would report 25%.


Instream Flow: Projects that maintain and/or increase the instream flow of water. Irrigation improvements that are primarily designed to improve water quality should be reported under Upland – Agriculture Management Activities. Check all proposed activities.

Irrigation practice improved to increase instream flows (e.g. install diversion headgate, replace open ditches with pipes)

Water flow gauges installed to measure water use

This project will dedicate instream flow. Other (explain):

% Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to instream flow activities

mi. Estimate the miles of stream where increased flow is the result of decreased/eliminated water withdrawals

cfs Estimate the increase in flow of water in the stream as a result of conservation effort (cubic feet per second)

mm/dd/yyyy Initial start date of irrigation practice improvement

mm/dd/yyyy Final end date of irrigation practice improvement (if improvement is permanent enter 12/31/9999)

Instream Habitat: Projects that are designed to improve instream habitat conditions.

Check all proposed activities.

Channel reconfiguration and connectivity (e.g., creating

instream pools, meanders, improving floodplain

connectivity, off-channel habitat)

Spawning gravel placement

Channel structure - large wood placement Plant Removal/control (instream)

List scientific names of plants

Channel structure - boulder placement Beaver introduction

Channel structure placement (other than large wood or

boulder placements), e.g., engineered structures or

deflectors, barbs, weirs, etc.

Carcass or nutrient placement:

salmonid carcass; fish meal brick; other nutrient

Streambank stabilization (includes bio-engineering) Other (explain):

40 % Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to instream habitat activities

0.50 mi. Estimate the miles of stream to be treated with instream habitat treatments (to nearest 0.01 mile)

% Estimate the percentage of insteam activity costs for carcass or nutrient placements. If you do not select

carcass/nutrient placements as an instream habitat activity, leave this value blank. Example: Your project will place

salmon carcasses. You estimated that 25% of the total project cost will apply to instream habitat activities and one

half of the instream improvements costs will apply to the carcass placement, you would report 50%.

Riparian Habitat: Projects above the ordinary high-water mark of the stream and within the floodplain of the stream. Check all proposed activities.

Riparian planting Conservation grazing management (e.g., rotation grazing)

Riparian fencing Non-native/noxious plant control

Livestock exclusion (by means other than fencing) Vegetation management (e.g. prescribed burnings, stand

thinning, stand conversions, silviculture)

Water gap development Other (explain): Do not report livestock water

developments here, report livestock water developments under

upland habitat treatments.

30 % Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to riparian habitat activities

195 ac. Estimate the acres of riparian habitat to be planted (to nearest 0.1 acres)

ac. Estimate the acres of riparian habitat to be treated for non-native/noxious weeds (to nearest 0.1 acres)

ac. Estimate the total riparian acres to be treated. (to nearest 0.1 acres)

.75 mi. Estimate the miles of riparian streambank to be treated (to nearest 0.01 mi). Stream sides treated one two (Do not double count miles if a second side is treated)


Upland Habitat: Projects implemented above the floodplain. Check all proposed activities.

Erosion control structures (e.g., sediment collection

basins, WASCOBs)

Upland Agriculture Management – (e.g., no/low-till, wind

breaks, and irrigation improvements)

Planting/seeding for erosion control (e.g., convert from

crops to native vegetation, plant area where non-

native/noxious weeds removed, grassed waterways,

windbreaks, filter strips)

List scientific names of plants

Livestock Manure Management (e.g., feedlot

improvements to reduce runoff , relocate/improve manure

holding structures and manure piles to reduce/eliminate

drainage into streams)

Slope stabilization (e.g., grade stabilization, landslide

reparation, terracing slopes)

Livestock/Wildlife Water Developments

Non-native/noxious plant control;

List scientific names of plants:

Upland Livestock Management (other than livestock

water developments), e.g., grazing plans, fencing

Juniper removal/control Restore Historic Upland Habitats ( e.g. oak woodland,

oak savannah, upland prairie restoration)

Vegetation Management (other than non-native/noxious

plant control or juniper removal, e.g. tree thinning, brush

control, burning)

List scientific names of plants:

Other (explain):

% Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project will apply to upland habitat activities

# Estimate the number of livestock/wildlife water developments

ac. Estimate the acres of upland habitat to be treated for non-native/noxious plants (to nearest 0.1 acres)

ac. Estimate the total acres of upland habitat to be treated (do not include acres of upland habitat affected by livestock

water developments (to nearest 0.1 acres)

% Estimate the percentage of upland activity costs applied to Livestock Manure Management. If you do not select

Livestock Manure Management as an upland habitat activity, leave this value blank. Example: Your project will

relocate a feedlot to reduce livestock manure runoff. You estimated that 33% of the total project cost will apply to

upland habitat activities and one half of the upland improvements costs will apply to the feedlot relocation, you would

report 50%.

Road Activities: Projects designed to improve road impacts to watersheds. Check all proposed activities.

Road drainage system and surface improvements & reconstruction Other (explain):

Road closure, relocation, obliteration (decommissioning)

% Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to road activities

mi. Estimate the miles of road treated (to nearest 0.01 mile)


Urban Impact Reduction: Check all of the urban impact related activities that will be used by this project:

Sewage outfall clean-up Bioswales

Toxin reduction: list names of each toxic species, element or

material:

Detention Facility

Pesticide reduction: list names of each pesticide: Other urban impact reduction (explain):

Stormwater/wastewater modification or treatment

Check all of the water quality limiting factors addressed by the Urban Impact Reduction activities selected above. Do not select

limiting factors addressed by other types of restoration activities:

Bacteria Pesticides Nutrients

Dissolved Oxygen Toxics Sediment

Heavy Metals High Temperature Other (explain):

% Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to urban impact activities

Wetland Habitat: Projects designed to create or improve wetland areas. Check all proposed activities.

Wetland planting Artificial wetland area created from an area not formerly a

wetland

Non-native/noxious/invasive plant control

Other (explain):

Wetland improvement/restoration of existing or historic

wetland (other than vegetation planting or removal)

% Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to wetland habitat activities

ac. Estimate the acres of wetland habitat to be treated for non-native/noxious/invasive plants (to nearest 0.1 acres)

ac. Estimate the acres of artificial wetland created (to nearest 0.1 acres)

ac. Estimate the total acres of wetland habitat (existing or historic) treated (to nearest 0.1 acres)

Estuarine Habitat: Projects that result in improvement or increase in the availability of estuarine habitat.

Check all proposed activities.

Channel modification/creation (e.g., improve intertidal

flow to existing estuarine habitat)

Non-native/noxious plant control

Dike or berm modification/removal Creation of new estuarine habitat where one did not exist

previously by methods other than tidegates or dikes

Removal of existing fill material Other (explain):

Placement of fill material (for proper terrestrial function)

% Estimate the percentage of total cost of the project applied to estuarine habitat activities

ac. Estimate the acres of estuarine habitat to be treated for non-native/noxious plants (to nearest 0.1 acres)

ac. Estimate the total acres of estuarine habitat (existing or historic) to be treated (to nearest 0.1 acres)

Date post:	11-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamkhuong
View:	217 times
Download:	4 times

Section II - filepickup.wrd.state.or.usfilepickup.wrd.state.or.us/files/Publications/OWEB/OWEB...

Documents