Proposal 199206800: Willamette Basin Mitigation

1. Administrative
2. Location
3. Species
4. Past accomplishments  
5. Relationships
6. Objectives
7. Work elements   
8. Budget
9. Future
10. Narrative

Organization: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Short description:
ODFW's proposal provides an integrative mitigation program that protects, conserves, and restores areas containing diverse habitats that assist the life history needs and resources for multiple terrestrial and aquatic species in the Willamette Basin.


Contact nameRoleAddressPhoneEmail
Michael Pope Form Submitter Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
3406 Cherry Avenue NE
Salem OR 97303

Section 2. Location

Province: Lower Columbia Subbasin: Willamette

Specific locations

Lat/longLocation descWaterbody (lake or stream)County/StateSubbasinResolutionPrimary?
45.3856, -122.4512 Clackamas Scenic HWY-south of Damascus Clackamas Clackamas Oregon Willamette area No
44.5330, -123.12792 Herbert Farms:on Muddy Creek, south Corvallis Muddy Crk Benton Oregon Willamette area No
44.1253, -123.1069 Green Island: Confluence of McKenzie and Willamette Rivers McKenzie and Willamette Rivers Lane Oregon Willamette area No
44.0225, -123.0177 Mt. Pisgah/Buford Park-confluence of Coast and Middle Fork of Willamette River south of Eugene MIddle Fork Willamette River and Lost Creek Lane Oregon Willamette area No
43.9485, -122.8469 Elijah Bristow State Park-south of Dexter Dam Middle Fork of Willamette River Lane Oregon Willamette area No
44.1106, -123.0411 Big Island: east of Springfield, adjacent to McKenzie River McKenzie River Lane Oregon Willamette area No
44.6997, -123.2125 EE Wilson Wildlife Area-1 mile north of Adair Village Near Soap Creek Benton Oregon Willamette area No
44.5882, -123.4172 Cardwell Hills: Just north of Wren on Mary's River Mary's River Benton Oregon Willamette area No
43.9224, -122.8070 Middle Fork Willamette from Dexter to Confluence of Coast Fork Coast and Middle Fork of Willamette River Lane Oregon Willamette area No
44.559674, -123.403224 Lone Star Ranch, west of Philomath in Coast Range foothills. Benton OR Willamette county Yes
44.993056, -123.142745 Zena Timber, west of Salem in Eola Hills Polk OR Willamette county Yes
44 37 20, -123 8 37 Ed Rust Properties-near Bowers Rock State Park Willamette Mainstem Linn OR Willamette point No
44 45 29, 123 8 58 Ed Rust Property at confluence of Luckiamute, Willamette, and Santiam Rivers Willamette River Polk OR Willamette point No

Section 3. Species

Primary: Anadromous: Anadromous Fish

Additional species: northern red-legged frog, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, western gray squirrel, Fender's blue butterfly, acorn woodpecker, Oregon vesper sparrow, streaked horned lark, western meadowlark, yellow-breasted chat, Willamette daisy, peacock larkspur, pileated woodpecker, western bluebird, slender billed nuthatch, western pond turtle, western painted turtle, wayside aster, Nelson's checkermallow, ospery, American bald eagle, American beaver, yellow-breasted chat,

Section 4. Past accomplishments

1992 1) Western pond turtle research and monitoring in confluence areas 2) Willamette Basin suitable habitat determination 3) Collect background information on potential mitigation sites
1993 1) Continue Western pond turtle research and monitoring 2) Develop GAP guidelines for habitat determination for mitigation
1994 1) Develop Willamette Basin-wide Consevation Planning for Western pond turtle 2) Background information on potential mitigation sites
1995 1) Western pond turtle conservation planning and background information on potential mitigation sites
1996 1) Completed graduate project for Western pond turtle, 2) Planning and design ofr Willamette Basin-wide mitgation project, 3) Complete Confluence GIS atlas
1997 1) Complete confluence hydrologic report 2) Completed HEP sampling and final report for HEP at confluence 3) Assembled Alternatives Team and produced recommnedations
1998 1) Acquisition of 44 acre Sorenson property 2) HEP completed at Sorenson site 3) NEPA completed on Sorenson site, 4) Identified and prioritized two new Willamette focus areas, 5) Developed partnership with Watershed Councils and McKenzie River Trust
1999 1) Formed Confluence Technical Advisory Committee 2) Apraisals for 67 acr Owens and 200 acre Winter Creek sites 3) HEP completed on Owens and Winter Creek properties 4) Revegetation of 5 acres on Sorenson and exotic plant removal on 220 South Pasture
2000 1) Purchase of 2 properties (Thurston/Big Island) along McKenzie River for McKenzie River Trust 2) Complete 1850 Willamette Vegetation Map3) Complete MOA with BPA
2001 1) HEP Report for McKenzie River properties completed, 2) Current and historic GIS layers produced for all Willamette projects, 3) Options secured on 22 ac Canby and 221 ac Herbert properties, 4) reforested 5 ac Sorenson and 8 ac South Pasture
2002 1) Purchase of 22 acre Canby property and 221 ac Herbert property 2) Option developed for 265 Crocker, 30 ac Walken, and 150 ac Koenig Property 3) Complete management plan for South Pasture 4) Conduct fish sampling on McKenzier River Projects
2003 1) Treated 20 ac of English ivy on 60 ac Rock Island project site, 2) irrigated 2000 trees on Sorenson site, 3) mowed 3 acres of Himalayan blackberry and 36 ac exotic grasses, 4) secured $100,000 matching funds for USCOE Willamette Floodplain Study
2004 1) Initiated full feasibility phase of floodplain restoration study including DEM data, hydrologic data, and EDT modelling, 2) worked City of Canby property management plan, 3) completed Big Island Management Plan, 4) purchase of Green Island
2005 1) Completed Geomorphology Study, DEM and worked on Ecological Modelling phase of Willamette Floodplain Restoration project, 2) mowed and sprayed 25 ac Sorenson and South Pasture, 3) initiated HEP Revision, 4) Identified 4 parcels for acquisition
2006 Funded Restoration and Enhancement Projects on Green and Big Islands, Yamhill County, EE Wilson and Buford Park including planting of thousands of native trees and shrubs, removal of invasive species, and creation of seasonal wetlands.
2007 Completed Conservation Easement on 1467 acre parcel in Eola Hills, west of Salem. Planted 60 acres of bottomland hardwood forests on Green Island and South Meadow. Removed and controlled invasive species on Big and Green Island, Buford Park, Herbert Farms
2008 Completed Conservation Easements on Deumling, Cupich, and Lone Star Propperties. Restored or enhanced oak forests on Buford Park, riparian and bottomland hardwood forest on Green Island. Controlled invasives on all sites.

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceProject IDProject TitleRelationship
BPA 200001600 Tualatin River National Wildli Habitat restoration goals and species conservation objectives are similar for this project and ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program
BPA 199205900 Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands - ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program has projects (particularly Green Island, Big Island, and Buford Park) that have provided a regional context along with TNC's Amazon Basin Project for habitat and species restoration in the southern portion of the Willamette Basin
BPA 199107800 Burlington Bottoms Wldlf Mitig Managment and coordination (work tasks and objectives) for the Burlington Bottoms project are facilitated through ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program.
OWEB - State 09-04-007 Marys River Oak Restoration ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program is a partner with OWEB and Benton County in developing habitat assessments for oak woodland habitats
OWEB - State 204-107 Green Island Project BPA through ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program funded in cooperation with OWEB a major portion of the acquisition of Green Island
OWEB - State 204-204 Elijah Bristow Riparian Restor ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program funding work on this OPRD Park in 2007-8 and the restoration continues through other funding.
Other: Greenbelt Land Trust Benton County Owens Farm, Bald Hill, Muddy Creek, Lupine Meadows These sites are restoration sites that are near BPA current and proposed projects. They included easements to restore and protect upland and wet prairie habitats including Fender's blue butterfly areas, Kincaid lupine, and Willamette daisy.
Other: McKenzie River Trust Lane County Coyote Creek Wet Prairie Restoration In the proposed budget request for 2007-2009 are capital funds for conservation easements along Coyote Creek. These easements would interlinked to current easements (held by McKenzie River Trust) along Coyote Creek and near Amazon Basin. This aggregation of easements protects 1000 acres of wet prairie habitat in Lane County.
Other: Three River's Land Trust Clackamas Conservation easements on conifer forest habitats in Clackamas Watershed Proposed easements for BPA funding for FY2007-2009 include potential sites adjacent or near current easements held by Three Rivers Land Conservency. This area is a high priority for fish and wildlife protection because of encroachng urban growth boundaries.
Other: USFWS LIP Program Willamette Valley Projects The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) coordinated by ODFW facilitates a number of projects in the Willamette that relate to the restoration strategies in ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program including riparian restoration on Newell Crk, oak savanna restoration in Lane County, prairie and oak savanna restoration in Marion County, and prairie and oak restoration in MaKenzie watershed.
Other: State Wildlife Grants from USFWS SWG Oregon Oregon Conservation Strategy Implementation Grants are for on-the-ground monitoring, survey, and restoration work related to Strategy Species and Habitats
Other: State of Oregon-General Funds Grasslands Program Willamette Valley Grasslands Restoration Program This program is provided technical assistance and restoration funding for restoration of upland praire and grasslands in the mid-Willamette Valley

Section 6. Objectives

Objective titleDescriptionRelevant subbasin planRelevant strategy(ies)Page number(s)
Connect Diverse Habitats The Willamette Valley is perhaps the most fragmented watershed in the Columbia Basin with 96% of the land in private ownership of parcels <100 ac. The Western Governor's Corridor's Initiative provides a regional framework for identifying and implementing strategies to ensure species can move across landscapes. Reconnecting key habitats in the Willamette Subbasin is a priority for genetic and species diversity and to provide disparate habitats that provide life history needs for multiple species. Willamette A favorable distribution of habitats increases the capacity of different species during various life stages and minimizes the risk of extinction and loss of diversity. Section 5, pp 3-45
Evaluation of Hydrologic Conditions The key to understanding and implementing flow pattersn that benefit aquatic and terrestrial species is to evaluate and predict impacts of different seasonal flow regimes Willamette Develop ecological models for use in describing existing hydrological conditions and the costs/benefits to actions associated with implementation of floodplain alternatives for restoration Section 5 pp 26-45
Identify Sites for Acquisition and Restoration The significant declines in distribution and size of focal habitats identified in the Willamette Subbasin Plan necessitates the need to identify and protect areas that contain these habitats. We propose to work with landowners, landtrusts, municipalities, SWCD, Watershed Councils and other state and Federal agencies to locate and initiate protections for properties with key ecological resources for fish and wildlife. Focus will be on the Conservation Opportunity Areas described in the Oregon Conservation Strategy and the priority areas in the Willamette Subbasin Plan. These sites will inlude the focal/strategy habitats such as oak savanna/woodlands, riparian, wetlands, prairie and grassland, and bottomland hardwood forest. Willamette Willamette Subbasin Plan and Oregon Conservation Strategy documents list the strategy sites. Section 5- p 39
Implement Willamette Floodplain Restoration Plan Installation of flood conrol and hydro-electric facilaties has altered the flow regimes and resulted in unfavorable water temperatures for many aquatic species and reduced teh interactions between rivers and their natural floodplains Willamette Achieve more natural flow and water regimes in major Willamette tributaries and implement more naturally occurring flow regimes that include periodic innudations Section 5 pg 26
Increase Interaction between Rivers and Floodplain Floodplain connections with river systems particularly side channel and back water areas have been impeded or degraded through human actions such as construction of revetments,berms, and roads. Reconnecting the floodplain with their primary water systems is critical for the restoration of many floodplain functions. Willamette Restore connections by removing blockages, exotic vegetation, and re-establishing flow regimes. Section 5 pg 26
Install Woody Debris for Habitat Diversity The lack of refugia in back water habitats has contributed to the decline of many aquatic species in the Willamette Basin. Installing large wood debris through direct action (log placement) or beaver restoratino is an effective approach to restoring refugia for native fish and wildlife and increasing floodplain complexity Willamette Increase supply of large down and dead wood in focal habitat areas including riparian and backwater habitats. Section 5 pg 26
Monitor and Evaluate Restoration Activities A clear link needs to be made between pre and post on-the-ground restoration and the response of native species to restoration activities. The adaptive management pahse of any restoration pr enhancement project should include monitoring and evaluating the response of priority species to actions implemented through management plans. Willamette Decisions on restoration directions and methodologies should arise from ebaluations of monitoring data collected systematically at restoration sites. Section 5 pg 37
Plant Native Vegetation (grass, trees and shrubs) Riparian functions and habitats have been extensively impacted by the reduction of interactions between rivers and streams and adajacent riparian habitats. Many riparian and upland habitats have been altered through agricultural conversions, native vegetation removal, and the introduction of exotic species Willamette Systematically remove or control harmful exotic vegetation through seasonal prescribed burning, mowing, and herbicide applications. Replant with native vegetation when invasives are controlled and eradicated. Section 5 pg 25
Regional Coordination and Communication A key feature for addressing conservation issues in the Willamette Basin is regional and local coordination through collaborations and partnerships including working with Fish and Wildlife Managers through CBFWA Willamette Institutional Strategies Section 5 pg 27
Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats Land and water uses over the last 150 years have dramatically altered composition and distribution of natural vegetation in the Willamette Basin and resulted in teh decilne in oak woodlands and savannas, riparian bottomland hardwood forests, wet and upland prairies, wetlands, and old growth conifer forests. Given the widespread and dramatic declines, restoring and conserving these habitats is of critical importance particularly to habitat obligates such as Fender's blue butterfly, Taylor's checkerspot butterfly, northern red-legged frogs, western pond turtles, and many avian species. Willamette Increase the extent, distribution, quality, and interconnection of focal habitats through acquisitions, conservation easements, restoration, and enhancements. Section 5 pg 25

Section 7. Work elements

Work element nameWork element titleObjective(s)Start dateEnd dateEstimated budget>Sponsor performs work?
Analyze/Interpret Data Complete final phase of Willamette Floodplain Restoration Study including reviewing data related to alternative conditions Evaluation of Hydrologic Conditions 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 20,000 Yes
Description: USACOE, TNC, and ODFW will review the completed work from the EDT and Terrestrial Modelin and the proposed floodplain restoratin alternatives related to the work.

Primary R, M, and E Type [Status and Trend Monitoring, Action Effectiveness Research, Uncertainties Research, Project Implementation/ Compliance Monitoring]: Tributary and Mainstem Benefits

Identify and Select Projects Coordinate with Landtrusts and Subcontractors to identify acquisitions and easements on critical projects. Complete due dilegence for acquisition work including community outreach, compliance, and internal communications Identify Sites for Acquisition and Restoration 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 50,000 Yes
Description: ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program cooredinates with the most active and effective Landtrusts in teh Willamette Basin to identify potential wildlife projects including fee title acquisitions and conservation easements for mitigatrion funding. Included in the coordination is the need to link projects to the Subbasin priority areas and the Conservation Strategies Conservation Opportunity Areas.
Land Purchase Acquire Conservation Easements and fee title for land parcels for wildlife mitigation in Conservation Opportunity Areas Identify Sites for Acquisition and Restoration 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 30,000 Yes
Description: Assist in developing and reviewing components in conservation easements and purchase agreements including protections for wildlife habitats and species. Also assist in developing associated prelimnary management plan (reguirement of BPA)to establish a framework for the easement language. Also coordinate with BPA and landowner on the federal compliance requirements for acquisistions.

Type of acquisition [Fee Title, New Easement, Renewed Easement, Exchange, Mix]: 600 acs

Produce Inventory or Assessment Identify, inventory, and assist in refining existing maps for critical habitats in the Willamette Subbasin including oak savanna/woodland, wet and upland prairie, and riparian/bottomland hardwood forests Identify Sites for Acquisition and Restoration 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 50,000 Yes
Description: Assist in inventory and survey of critical habitats for acquisition and restoration in the Willamette Subbasin. Included in this inventory will be multiple site visits to assess context and conditions, mapping of habitat features, and preliminary identification of species that will be impacted by the acquisition or restoration work
Produce Plan Complete Willamette Floodplain Restoration Plan for Middle and Coast Forks fo the Willamette and initiate second phase (implementation planning) for the Plan Implement Willamette Floodplain Restoration Plan 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 40,000 No
Description: USACOE in partnership with ODFW, Willamette Partnership and the Nature Conservancy implemented a floodplain restoration feasibility study for the Coast and Middle Forks of the Willamette. The outcome of the study was to develop hydrological EDT models that linked to terresterial models to produce alternatives for flow modifications and floodplain restoration. The Plan for this work will in 2010 lead to implementation actions such as restoration, removal of dikes and berms, land acquisitions and other activities to enhance floodplain functions.
Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Realign and reconnect back water channels on Buford Park, Big Island, Green Island, and potential new acquisitions (Rust Albany Property. Increase Interaction between Rivers and Floodplain 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 250,000 No
Description: Reconnect mainstem water systems with floodplain side channels by removing barriers, evacating filed areas, and controlling vegetation.

# of stream miles after treatment: 0.6 km

Enhance Floodplain/Remove, Modify, Breach Dike Install in-stream woody debris to increase refugia for fish and wildlife Install Woody Debris for Habitat Diversity 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 80,000 No
Description: Woody debris will be added to increase in-stream complexity at Green and Big Islands adn Buford Park

# of riparian acres treated: 0.9 km

Create/Manage/Maintain Database Maintain database for exisiting projects including electronic and hardcopies of management plans and assessment documents. GIS layers will also be included in the database Monitor and Evaluate Restoration Activities 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 20,000 Yes
Description: Coordinate the compilation of monitoring, GIS, and baseline assessment information into an explicit database
Produce (Annual) Progress Report Complete annual progress report for all projects Monitor and Evaluate Restoration Activities 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 6,000 Yes
Description: Complete and submit annual reports on projects to BPA.
Plant Vegetation Plant trees and shrubs at Buford Park, Big and Green Islands, Herbert Farms, Camp Adair, Rust Properties, Zena Properties, and new acquisition sites Plant Native Vegetation (grass, trees and shrubs) 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 300,000 No
Description: Native trees and shrubs will be planted to restoe bottomland harwood forests. Areas will be re-seeded with native annuals to restore upland/wet prairies,

# of riparian acres treated: 150 ac
# of upland acres treated: 50 ac

Plant Vegetation Establish native plant grow-out operation through subcontracts with private agricultural landowners to supply native grasses and forbs for restoration projects for focal habitats in the Willamette Valley Plant Native Vegetation (grass, trees and shrubs) 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 160,000 No
Description: One of the primary roadblocks to restoration of native upland prairies and wet prairies is the availability of native seed and plants for the Willamette Valley. This work element will assist in the development of grow-out operatios for genetically appropriate native grasses and forbs.
Regional Coordination Work with regional partners on common goals and strategies for restoratin and planning in the Willamette Subbasin Regional Coordination and Communication 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 40,000 Yes
Description: Coordinate regional by participating in CBFWA Wildlife Advisory Commttee on amendment and planning processes. Work with other regional partners to identify and implement common goals.
Conduct Controlled Burn Conduct Controlled Burns in wet/upland prairie and oak savanna habitats to control exotics and enhance native shrubs, forbs, and grasses Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 10/30/2012 100,000 No
Description: Prescribed fire will be used to remove non-native species from upland praire sites to promote the restoration of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs on selected project sites in the Willamette Basin including EE Wilson, Mt. Pisgah Buford Park, and Camp Adair

# of upland acres treated: 100 ac

Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Complete required Federal Compliance for restoration and acquisition proejcts including Section 7 (ESA), Cultural Resource, herbicide applications, and NEPA. Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 12/30/2012 70,000 Yes
Description: Facilitate the completion of required Federal Compliance with subcontractors including cultural resource reviews and Section 7 (ESA) species reviews. Coordination could include Cultural Resource survey, herbicied reporting nd compliance, and Land Audits

Are herbicides used as part of work performed under this contract?: 300 acres

Produce Plan Coordinate and review development of management plans as required for new acquisitions and assist in review and planning for revisions of existing management plans Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 11/30/2009 50,000 Yes
Description: All new acquisitions (easements or fee tite) will have associated manageent plans that describe the current status of the propertty and future trajectories for management and restoration. ODFW will assist in developing and reviewing these plans. Also coordinate with project managers and landowners on revising existing plans and coordinate with BPA on approval of new plans and revisions.
Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland Create and enhance emergent wetlands in Conservation Opportunity Areas to benefit priority species. Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 250,000 No
Description: Emergent wetlands will be enhanced on EE Wilson and Green Island, Buford Park, Big Island, and on new acquisitions (Ed Rust Properties, Hall Properties) to benefit species such as red-legged frogs, western pond turtles, shore birds, and waterfowl

# of riparian acres treated: 100 ac

Maintain Vegetation Maintain native tree, shrub, grass, and forb plantings through mowing and irrigation Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 306,032 No
Description: Existing and proposed new plantings will be maintained through seasonal mwing, spraying and irrigation. Upland and wet meadows may be enahnced throuhg limited disking and/or burning.
Remove vegetation Harmful exotic vegatation will be sprayed, mowed, or hand pulled to enhance restoration of native vegetation. Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 350,000 No
Description: Invasive and non-native vegetation (blackberries, scotch broome, Japanese knot weed, reed canarygrass, and others) will be removed by hand pulling, spraying with an herbicide, or mowing to facilitate the planting or restoration of native plant species to increase benefits for priority wildlife. Projects include Green and Big Islands, Camp Adair, Zena, Lone Star, Rust Properties, and Buford Park

# of riparian acres treated: 300 ac
# of upland acres treated: 400 ac
# of wetland acres treated: 90 ac

Outreach and Education Work with Subcontractors and other partners to dissmenate information about project restoration outcomes, techniques, management plans, and biological objectives Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 40,000 Yes
Description: ODFW collaborates with a broad coalition of partners on restoratino projects including monitoring protocols, restoration techniques, landowner outreach, and techincal assistance

# of general public reached: 200
# of students reached: 100
# of teachers reached: 10

Manage and Administer Projects Coordinate subcontracts, administer and develop budgets, track and validate invoices, work internally to coordinate contracts and funding, work with BPA on annual contracts. Restore and Conserve Physical Habitats 12/1/2010 11/30/2012 150,000 Yes
Description: ODFW will identify, coordinate, and implement a range of subcontracts to complete the tasks described for the Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program. Also track and validate invoices, conduct site visits to ensure that objectives are being accomplished, and work with subcontractors and internally if within-year revisions are required.
work element budget total: 2,362,032

Section 8. Budget

Item Note FY 2010 cost ($) FY 2011 cost ($) FY 2012 cost ($)
Personnel ODFW NRCS-Project Manager for the Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program (1.0)FTE 53,000 54,000 55,000
Personnel ODFW-NRS 2 Field Coordinator-Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program- (1.0 FTE) 43,000 44,000 45,000
Supplies Hardware and specialized computer software (GIS Software, upgrade)for Mitigation Program 1,500 800 800
Supplies Office supplies ODFW Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program staff 1,000 1,000 1,000
Supplies Printing costs (documents, diagrams, reports, handouts, etc)for Mitigation Program 1,000 1,000 1,000
Supplies Meeting supplies (handouts, rental equipment, services) for Mitigation Program 500 500 500
Supplies Photocopies and digital aerial photography for restortion sites (Mitigation Program) 800 800 800
Supplies Enhancement materials (herbicides, plant material, tools, equipment, etc) for EE Wilson Wildlife Area restoration 20,000 20,000 25,000
Supplies Telecommunications-2 cell phones for Wildlife Mitigation Program 600 750 750
Other Pre-acquisition activities (appraisals, due diligence, title searches, biological assessments) ODFW Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program 25,000 25,700 26,425
Fringe Benefits OPE for 2 ODFW Staff (NRS 3 and NRS 2) at 61% 58,560 60,390 61,000
Travel 1 Vehicle (SUV)-Motor Pool Rental 12 months at $600 month 7,200 7,200 7,200
Travel Mileage (.28/mile) 2000 mile/month for 12 months-2010 Mileage (.35/mile) 2000 mile/month for 12 months- 2011 Mileage (.40 mile) 2000 mile/month for 12 months-2012 6,720 8,400 9,600
Travel Out of State Travel (4- Trips/yr $600/trip to Conferences and Training) 2,400 2,400 2,400
Travel In-State Travel (10-12 Trips/yr at $100/trip) 1,000 1,100 1,200
Overhead Federal Indirect (33%) 73,352 75,253 78,432
Other Subcontract with Friends of Buford Park for restoration, enhancement, and maintenance for Sorenson, South Meadow, and Mt Pisgah. 90,000 90,000 90,000
Other Subcontract with McKenzie River Trust for restoration, enhancement, and maintenance for Green Island. 90,000 90,000 90,000
Other Subcontract with McKenzie River Trust for restoration, enhancement, and maintenace of Big Island 39,000 39,000 39,000
Other Subcontract with The Nature Consevancy for the Willamette Floodplain Restoration Implementation on Middle Fork and Coast Fork Willamette Rivers 85,000 80,000 75,000
Other Subcontract with Trout Mountain Forestry for restoration of oak savanna, upland prairie, and riparian habitats on Zena Timber 30,000 30,000 30,000
Other Subcontract with the Greenbelt Landtrust for maintenance, enhancement, and restoration of oak savanna and upland prairie habitats on Lone Star Ranch 35,000 35,000 35,000
Other Subcontract with Greenbelt Landtrust for restoration and enhancement of Willamette floodplain near Bowers Rock and Luckiamute Landing 30,000 30,000 30,000
Other Subcontract with the Nature Conservancy to establish a native plant nursery to supply restoration projects in the Willamette Subbasin 60,000 50,000 35,000
Other Subcontract with USFWS for restoration and enhancement of oak savanna and upland prairie on Camp Adair 40,000 40,000 40,000
Itemized budget totals: 794,632 787,293 780,107
Type of funding source Funding source or organization Item or service provided FY 2010 est value ($) FY 2011 est value ($) FY 2012 est value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
federal USACOE Willamette Floodplain Restoration Implementation Funds 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Cash Under Development
non-profit The Nature Conservancy Matching Grant for Willamette Floodplain Restoration Study 50,000 50,000 50,000 In-Kind Under Development
non-profit McKenzie River Trust In-kind volunteer work for restoration and monitoring on Green and Big Islands 30,000 30,000 30,000 In-Kind Confirmed
non-profit Friends of Buford Park In-kind work for restoration and enhancements for Mt Pisgah/Buford Park 25,000 25,000 25,000 In-Kind Confirmed
federal USFWS Funding for restoration work on Camp Adair 30,000 30,000 30,000 Cash Under Development
non-profit Greenbelt Landtrust In-kind management and technical assistance to Lone Star and other easement properties 10,000 10,000 10,000 In-Kind Confirmed
private Zena Timber In-kind management and restoration Assistance to restoration projects 8,000 8,000 8,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Cost share estimate totals: 653,000 1,153,000 1,153,000

FY 2010-12 total cost share estimate: 2,959,000

Section 9. Project future

Outyear budgets 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
3,800,000 3,800,000 2,750,000 3,750,000 3,750,000 3,750,000

Approximately $800,000 for both FY2010 and FY2011 for the expense side of the budget (Personal Services, Supplies, and restoration subcontracts. Approximately $3,000,000/yr for easements and acquisiitons.

Likely project termination/end date: None

Termination notes:
No termination date because ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program will continue until all mitigation for loss assessements in the Willamette has been completed. This program includes an integrative approach combining habitat assessments, restoration and enhancments of degraded habitats, and acquisition or conservation of high quality or priority habitats.

Final deliverables:
Approximately 91,000 HU's remain for wildlife mitigation in the Willamette Basin. The final deliverable will be the complete accounting of these HU's for construction and innundation losses.


ISRP final recommendation: Meets Scientific criteria? Yes (Qualified)

This is a large, exciting, and important project in the Willamette Valley that has focused primarily on land acquisition and project initiation, possibly to the detriment of higher level (subbasin) planning and the establishment of a coordinated monitoring and evaluation plan for the subbasin. Qualifications: 1. Sponsors should follow The Nature Conservancy (TNC) lead on organizing and documenting partnerships, progress, and development of a coordinated monitoring and evaluation approach. This can be done in-house with ODFW or by contracting to qualified partners. 2. Sponsors should plan to provide the ISRP with additional information on the progress of the Willamette Subbasin projects over the next several (3-5) years. This report should come in two forms: a. Provide the ISRP with an Annual Summary Report. This should include a short summary section for the entire Willamette Basin project that succinctly captures work accomplished for the year and describes significant milestone events, or progress toward milestone events. In addition to the brief Summary section, the Annual Report should include 3-5 page reports for each property/project that summarize accomplishments for the year in both narrative and summary tables for that specific project. Summary results can be presented in tables and graphs, but should not include large tables of raw data. The ISRP is primarily interested in biological results and a synthesis of the M&E results for each property/project. b. Sponsors should plan to present a day-long update to the ISRP on the Willamette Basin projects after two more field seasons of progress (perhaps scheduled for the fall of 2010 or winter of 2011). The presentation should summarize accomplishments and lessons learned to date and what has been learned by the development and implementation of the coordinated monitoring and evaluation system described in Qualification #1. These steps will help document the success or failures of this important process and project (or more appropriately, set of projects). The Willamette basin project is an important pilot of landscape scale restoration and could serve as an example for others, if documented appropriately and reviewed at regular intervals. Summary In their response, the sponsors provided detailed information about each project that provided a more comprehensive view of its accomplishments. There is no doubt that the collaborations they have developed are key to what they have been able to accomplish. With respect to monitoring, there is a basic level of accountability wherever NPCC invests O&M funds; however, that need not require comprehensive effectiveness monitoring on every parcel. At this point, it appears that management of many parcels is not in the hands of the sponsors, which makes monitoring issues appear secondary to the urgency of securing expensive properties in the face of rapid urbanization. In this circumstance, contracting monitoring might be a useful approach. Following The Nature Conservancy approach may adequately resolve this issue. Ongoing work and partnerships with the NHI (Northwest Habitat Institute) may also prove fruitful. Reviewers acknowledge that the project, in spite of a start date 15 years ago, has in fact only been operating with appropriate funds for the last five years or so. Efforts during that time have focused on acquisitions; consequently, the time is now ripe for development of a coordinated monitoring and evaluation plan for the various components in this Willamette basin landscape restoration project. Management planning usually includes specifying a desired future condition, which becomes the basis for monitoring comparisons. Monitoring needs will vary depending on the condition of the site at the time of acquisition, and it is key to have an assessment of conditions at acquisition; not, as many suggest as a baseline, but as a point in time from which to plan and evaluate future management. The actual assessment and monitoring need not be by the sponsor as long as the sponsor is involved in the decision process and accepts accountability. The current suggestion to delay monitoring works against the desperately needed accumulation of knowledge of the functions of these ecosystems and means to sustain or restore them. These considerations suggest separating acquisition from O&M and from M&E as three separate projects. Other sponsors have done this successfully with multiple partners and properties and working under similar development pressure. The acquisition component is scientifically sound, but the O&M requests, in light of the monitoring record, need further work. Similarly, sponsors should look to the Oregon Conservation Plan for examples of meaningful monitoring and for a model of an adaptive management approach. A regional approach for monitoring and evaluation of habitat (and wildlife responses), such as work presently being conducted by the Upper Columbia United Tribes (project #200800700), is being developed A comparable program seems warranted for the Willamette. Finally, the ISRP appreciated the Project’s "on the ground' summaries (p.6 - 44) and the project histories RM&E (p. 44 - 53) and the list of the proposed new projects (starting on page 53). The ISRP was not clear on why Camp Adair is a target as a new project; the argument that Camp Adair provides potentially critical linkage appears weak ecologically unless Camp Adair is a center of biological diversity, which was not indicated.

from May 19, 2009 ISRP 2009-17 report

Sponsor response to ISRP preliminary review

199206800 Response ISRP 2010_2012 Project Reviews.doc
199206800 Buford Coast Fork Fish Data.pdf
199206800 Buford_ Sorenson avian monitoring 2007.xls
199206800 Buford_ SouthMeadow Channel sampling091207notes.xls
199206800 Green Island Bird Survey Fall 2008.pdf
199206800 Green Island Bird Survey Spring 2007.pdf
199206800 Green Island Bird Survey Spring 2008.pdf
199206800 Green Island Bird Survey Summer 2007.pdf
199206800 Green Island Bird Survey Winter 2008.pdf
199205800 Green Island Bird Survey Winter 2007.pdf
199206800 Bg Island McKenzie River Trust Water Quality 06 07BI.txt
199206800 Big Island 00 Report Chub Pond Hydrologyno pics.pdf
199206800 Big Island McKenzie River Trust Water Quality 06 07.xls
199206800 Big Island Observed Fish_Plants 2008.doc
199206800 Big Island Oregon Chub Spring 2008 sampling summary.pdf
199206800 Big Island ReportI.doc
199206800 Big Island Salix Associates Vascular Plants 2007-09-20.doc
199206800 Zena Report 2008-11-03.pdf
199206800 NHI Focal Habitat and Species Monitoring Approach Willamette Valley 04-06-09.doc
199206800 NHI NFWF Oaks Programatic Report 1-17-08.doc
199206800 NHI Oak Accuracy Assessment Report Willamette Valley Mapping 04-06-09.pdf
199206800 PNAMP_Draft_ISTM_MSDpaper_2009_0211v2.0.doc

ISRP preliminary recommendation: Meets scientific criteria? Response requested

The project needs to have a more detailed M&E plan and summary of M&E results and adaptive management to date. The project is 15+ years old and does not have a well-documented set of results that reflect systematic accomplishments. This is a critical deficiency. The lack of monitoring, (or monitoring results) precludes our ability to determine if management is scientifically sound. This is a stark contrast to the obvious scientific rigor applied to developing the acquisition strategy and criteria. It does not appear that there are plans to remedy the situation, leaving the ISRP in the same situation as 2007, supporting the acquisition component of the project, but not the O&M, until a credible monitoring report and future monitoring strategy and plan are submitted. In its last review the Council reiterated this concern in their funding decision: "At the same time, the recommended expense funding for operation and maintenance should be considered interim, with a final recommendation pending the outcome of the wildlife land operation and maintenance review. In addition, the project sponsor should make special efforts in its annual reports and in the next project review cycle to report anything that it possibly can as to the benefits to fish and wildlife actually realized by the project that can be gleaned from the ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts in the Willamette basin, as well as some assessments of what it would take to know more about the benefits to fish, assuming it is even possible." No monitoring results are reported in this proposal, even for the earliest acquisitions, although monitoring is listed as an activity in several project histories and management plans. For example, the South Pasture Plan was created in 2001 and included 5 years of monitoring by the subcontractors. Was this done? Could it be reported here? While the project is complimented for its many effective collaborations, this may also complicate accountability, perhaps being part of the monitoring issue. The sponsors are encouraged to consider how their collaborations might be an asset in the task of summarizing biological effectiveness to date, and ensuring adequate monitoring of biological results of Program investments going forward. This is a large, complex project, growing larger and more complex over time. Given the continuing differences in scientific merit between the acquisition and O&M components, it might be useful to split this into two separate projects that could be funded separately. The monitoring issue might then be more easily addressed. The sponsors might consider contracting out the monitoring, or adding a monitoring specialist to their team. This project is a priceless opportunity to apply adaptive management to unique and rare landscapes, the results of which will greatly leverage the investment in acquiring and managing these lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife. The Willamette subbasin is 94% privately owned (surface area), housing a majority of Oregon’s human population. This project may be a model for addressing fish and wildlife goals associated with a large river in a human dominated landscape, offering important lessons for the future of the entire region. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The Willamette Wildlife Project is a network of over a dozen terrestrial habitat projects in the subbasin. The subbasin is 94% privately owned (by surface area coverage) and harbors a majority of the Oregon human population. The primary goal and outcome will be to secure, conserve, and restore habitats within the subbasin. The project provides excellent background with lots of justification with references for need of habitat restoration in the Willamette Valley Subbasin and addresses goals in the Willamette Subbasin Plan and the Oregon Conservation Strategy. Relationships and linkage to regional programs and plans are also described in good detail including the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2004 Willamette Valley Subbasin Plan, the Oregon Conservation Strategy, the BiOp, and others. The sponsors list what appear to be all vertebrate communities in the subbasin as "primary" or "other" species (i.e., all salmon, steelhead, lamprey, resident chub, and all wildlife). This is probably true at some level if the ecosystem functions as it should. Consequently, there is a lengthy list of "objectives" and work elements outlined in the project. Most are broadly stated goals (e.g., "Connect Diverse Habitats", "Increase Interaction between Rivers and Floodplain) rather than measurable objectives and include work elements with coarse-filter activity targets (such as acres or stream miles treated). The Willamette Wildlife Project is a network of terrestrial habitat projects in the Willamette subbasin. The projects are loosely related and function more as a “program” than a project making it difficult for the ISRP to review it effectively. The project is large and diffuse. Reviewers were left to wonder how the larger project all fit together. The Willamette Subbasin Plan was notable for its extensive analyses of floodplain habitats (historic and present) and for its attempt to prioritize actions and opportunities. That approach is evident in the Willamette Wildlife Project; however, the reviewers had a hard time understanding the scope and details. Questions included: What is the strategic planning needed for? How does the project fit together? A great strength of this project is the numerous collaborations that sponsors have developed. The cost sharing is one significant result, as are the number of management activities contracted out. Integration of this program with the Oregon Conservation Strategy is another synergy. The flip side of this, however, is sorting out which activities serve which objectives, when the objectives of programs are not completely overlapping. This complicates accountability, which may be part of the monitoring issue. The sponsors are encouraged to consider how their collaborations might be an asset in the task of summarizing biological effectiveness to data, and ensuring adequate monitoring of biological results of Program investments going forward. 2. Project History and Results This section is incomplete – plans, ongoing accomplishments (mostly from various Subcontractor's status, accomplishments, and planning reports) are described in some detail, but documentation/reporting of results very weak. Detailed project histories and "results" are presented as actions, rather than outcomes of actions. This is suitable to finite tasks such as acquisitions, but problematic for management activities. See M&E below. The project has been ongoing since 1992. Monitoring and results reporting is a critical element for a project of this duration. After more than 10 years, there should be a substantial reporting of results to date. These should include both coarse-filter changes to the habitats (acres treated), as well as a fine-filter accounting of focal wildlife species responses. We searched Bonneville’s annual reports on the web and found only four Willamette reports done since initiation of the project in 1992, including a very detailed monograph on western painted turtle status (good to see but hardly covering all of the other habitat restoration activities). The 2005-06 progress report to BPA was the only one that included useful information on recent results of habitat restoration work and recent acquisitions. Why wasn't this report cited or used in the proposal? 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Objectives are only stated as broad goals (Willamette Subbasin Plan Goals?). Revising work elements into a series of objectives would make more sense. Methods and metrics were almost non-existent for Objectives 1 and 2, and Objective 3 mostly describes the revised HEP related plans and development activities. Objectives and work elements are lengthy and diverse, which reflect the patchwork of habitats included in the project. Objectives are broad and general, for example "pursue acquisitions," rather than something like "secure acquisitions sufficient to add X HU/year to program." There is a broad, un-measurable monitoring objective and a work element for a database, but no work elements to collect, analyze or evaluate monitoring data. For sites with management plans, the plans include monitoring. No work elements are in sufficient detail to offer methods where the scientific basis might be evaluated. There is a $30,000 work element for acquisitions, but this does not appear in the actual budget. Later a note states: "Approximately $800,000 for both FY2010 and FY2011 for the expense side of the budget (Personal Services, Supplies, and restoration subcontracts. Approximately $3,000,000/yr for easements and acquisitions.)" Are no acquisitions planned until the out years? 4. M&E Monitoring and results reporting is a critical element for a project of this duration. After more than 10 years, there should be a substantial reporting of results to date. These should include both coarse-filter changes to the habitats (acres treated) as well as a fine-filter accounting of focal wildlife species responses. Broad general plans for future monitoring are presented but not linked to any particular projects or practices. Compared to the level of detail presented in most sections, these plans are not credible. Meanwhile, restoration techniques appear to be being replicated from site-to-site, with no validation as to their success in restoring habitat to benefit fish and wildlife. Further, no scientific justification for selection or use of any restoration strategy is offered. This region is under-mitigated, and this project is an ambitious effort to remedy that situation. Not monitoring the results of management practices in these unique habitats means there is limited opportunity to validate and improve restoration practices as the project continues. Mistakes will likely be repeated, and opportunities will be missed. This is an economic as well as scientific weakness. It appears that M&E is to be planned, developed, and coordinated in upcoming workshops. The outline for this looks good and hopefully will get done. Until then, this is a failing point of this project. Consequently, the ISRP requests a more complete description of how progress will be monitored. Measurable objectives are not always listed and hinder future monitoring. For instance, the objective “remove exotic vegetation,” where, when and how, what species? Work elements are often stated in terms of amount of habitat obtained or restored rather than in terms of fish and wildlife outcomes. They need a region-wide reporting program. Defenders of Wildlife have an on-line program that they are encouraging reporting to, but no project results were found when it was searched. There are frequent references to HEP and two work elements related to "improving" HEP. While not presented as monitoring, there seems to be more commitment to HEP than to effectiveness monitoring. Sponsors really do need both, one for accounting and the other for scientific validity. Appendix #6 discusses the HEP issue in the Willamette Valley, primarily its history, calculation and problems. It is not really clear why this is included, except perhaps in support of Appendix 7: Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation (Wildlife Advisory Committee-CBFWA) 2008, which appears to be a recommendation for the Program Amendment. None of this is relevant to the problem of effectiveness monitoring. The ISRP requests that the authors address fish and wildlife responses. Appendices include #5 which is a discussion of monitoring associated with the Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS). While there is logical overlap and apparent efficiency in combining these efforts, it appears that the OCS team is years away from actually being able to monitor on the ground at the resolution currently needed for this project. This need not constrain current monitoring expected by the Fish and Wildlife Program. What the Program needs is considerably more explicit and site specific than what may be needed by the OCS.

from Mar 26, 2009 ISRP 2009-7 report