2010 Wildlife project review

The sponsors document an impressive increase in post-restoration waterfowl counts and shorebird records at the Oleson wetlands. The vegetation survey plots seem adequate to the monitoring program. They have learned from the relatively poor survival of the first year plantings (don't plant too late in the growing season) and have incorporated these lessons into subsequent efforts. The response shows that the Tualatin NWR staff is continuing to improve their monitoring program and is practicing adaptive management. The summary responses indicate past management successes and failures. The sponsors appear committed to continuous improvement of management techniques. The use of stratified (systematic random vegetation transects, bird point count surveys in open and forested habitat, and winter waterfowl counts, and marsh bird surveys) provide data to support project evaluation. Reporting percent survival of planted species is noteworthy and applauded. Data summaries such as are presented are useful and increase confidence in the project. The sponsors are encouraged in the future to determine if sustained changes are statistically significant. This would be an excellent location to add amphibian studies and this might be considered in the CCP process. Nearby colleges could be a helpful resource for monitoring, and questions of scale, urbanization and climate change could all be addressed, thus contributing to knowledge of these vulnerable species.

The ISRP requests a response: a summary of the monitoring results to date, to provide evidence that management activities are achieving desired habitat objectives, and that results are being used to adjust activities as needed. It would be useful to see tables, graphs, or evidence of statistical analysis. A map showing the location of the key acquisitions and restoration sites would be helpful. The proposal described a worthwhile project that could benefit a variety of fish and wildlife near the Portland-Vancouver area by acquiring and continuing to restore the area in and adjacent to the former Wapato Lake. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The project was adequately justified and related to other restoration programs in the area. Because the Tualatin National Wildlife Refuge is in close proximity to a very large metropolitan area it is likely to be highly visible and of interest to policy makers looking for success stories of wildlife habitat restoration. The proposal did a good job of summarizing the goals and objectives in a concise manner. It could have more effectively pointed out how this project would help connect the local network of wildlife habitat acquisitions in the vicinity of Wapato Lake, but otherwise the justification and significance was clearly presented. 2. Project History and Results Annual summaries of project accomplishments were given. In most cases the proposal clearly stated the implementation accomplishments; however, it could have been more complete in describing the results of ongoing wildlife surveys. For example, what was the evidence that restoration actions such as native vegetation plantings or bird nesting boxes were achieving desired results? Have any quantitative targets for focal species abundance been established? Some monitoring has occurred. The proposal states "Point count surveys in 2006 revealed 33 species of birds using this area...; During vegetation surveys of the scrub shrub wetland dozens of songbird nests were noted on the sapling trees and shrubs planted here the previous year...; Weekly waterfowl counts revealed an annual average of 12,591 ducks and 4866 geese used the area following restoration of the seasonal wetland compared with 1731 ducks and 1103 geese prior to restoration." It would be useful to see tables, graphs, or evidence of statistical analysis in the proposal itself. Links to annual reports were included; however, the reports themselves lacked some detail. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The proposal provided a good description of the restoration methods being used on the Tualatin NWR. It also explained why there was a very large acquisition budget (the owner of several parcels would only sell them in their entirety). It would have been helpful to describe the non-native vegetation threats to the restoration of a native plant assemblage; for example, were they seeing an increase in the incidence of Asian knotweed? Otherwise, the procedures were adequately described. 4. M&E The use of monitoring data in modifying management activities was a little unclear, although this was implied in the work elements. Descriptions of some procedures are quite detailed, and it would be useful to know how the outcomes will be used in future management plans. For example, if the grasses that are being mowed include reed canarygrass, mowing may be shown to actually enhance the spread and persistence of the species. It is noted that monitoring is largely supported by the NWR; however, these results may indicate success of BPA funded activities and thus be useful here. The project sponsors state that "surveys have been developed to provide quantitative data for evaluation and adaptive management," but not many details were provided. As noted earlier, there were hints of monitoring results, but summaries of findings were lacking. The description of monitoring methods included reference to standard methodologies, but there were no citations for clarification.