The ISRP commends the project sponsors for developing a well-designed program that is worthy of further support. It provides a way for non-profits, local governments, and private and public landowners to participate in the recovery of important floodplain habitats in the Willamette Basin. Its prioritization of restoration areas, project review, and selection processes appear well founded. Its actions are fulfilling the Willamette BiOp and the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program goals and objectives.

The proposal meets scientific review criteria. However, the ISRP recommends that the sponsors consider the suggestions and recommendations made in the following sections of the proposal.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project responds closely to the priorities and action items in the Willamette Subbasin Plan and the Willamette BiOp. The BiOp identified two Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs 7.1.2 and 7.1.3) that needed to be addressed in the Willamette River Basin. The requirements of the RPAs were to establish a program to identify habitat restoration projects and to select and implement at least two restoration projects per year from 2011-2023. The Willamette Bi-Op Habitat Restoration project meets these needs. It is good to see that the project sponsors are realistic, and they articulate the limitations of the impact that habitat restoration can have in this highly modified system.

This is an important regional program. The lower Willamette River is tidal and should be managed as part of the estuary-river continuum that was recognized in the recent ISAB review of the Fish and Wildlife Program (ISAB 2013-1). While the sponsors acknowledge this linkage they only mention it in passing under Additional Relationships Explanation. Future proposals need to provide a more detailed explanation of why this linkage has not been developed.

The four project objectives are straightforward and outcomes easily tracked. Progress on all of these objectives has been made. Protocols for identifying and prioritizing areas for restoration and performing status and trend monitoring have been established. Additionally, methods for soliciting project proposals; creating scientific review teams; and reviewing, selecting, and funding projects have been installed. The project is serving an important role in identifying, selecting, funding, and monitoring floodplain restoration projects in the Willamette River Basin.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

When the project first began, outreach efforts were directed toward agricultural and gravel mining landowners to identify areas that would allow expanded floodplain use. At the same time properties were purchased and restoration work was begun on previously acquired land. So far approximately 2,800 acres of conserved land has been acquired and 480 acres of floodplain has been reforested.

Since its inception, the project has refined and adjusted how it selects, prioritizes, and monitors habitat restoration projects. For example, it funded the development of a map of the Willamette Basin which shows the parts of the floodplain that will be inundated with a two-year flood. This information has been coupled with the occurrence of anchor habitats, that is areas that can support cold water fishes, to help prioritize where recovery work should take place. The project has also completed a draft of a monitoring and evaluation plan which will be used to track status and trends in restored areas. Additionally, it is currently seeking a quantitative method that can be used to assess its reforestation efforts in floodplain areas. The project is accomplishing its restoration objectives and appears to be adjusting its methods as new information becomes available. This is a good initiative and is line with ISAB recommendations for a true landscape approach to habitat restoration in the Columbia River Basin.

The sponsors describe ongoing changes and continuing reassessment of success. As such there does not seem to be adaptive management in the sense of designing experiments with the intention of using results to adaptively manage. Rather, the approach seems to focus on a series of modifications to improve the project selection process as well as restoration strategies. Future changes in projects will be based on results, for example, results of re-vegetation will guide future plantings.

Evaluation of Results

This is a fairly new project so there are not many results to report yet. The 2011 Annual report detailing the Green Island levee removal showed, with photos, that after the levee removal, a high flow event occurred in 2011 and the floodplain area was covered with up to 3.5 feet of water which had not happened since the mid 1960s. Also non-native invasive plants have been reduced by removal and new plantings of native species planted. Early data on monitoring of fish distribution and abundance indicated that there appeared to be an indication that more complex habitats contained higher species richness and abundance than less complex habitats.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The sponsors clearly identify relationships to other projects and to limiting factors in the region. The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Meyer Memorial Trust, and the Willamette Special Investment Partnership have formed a partnership to perform this project. This group collaborates with the Willamette Action Team for Ecosystem Restoration and a Habitat Technical Team. It is also receives cost sharing support from the Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program for land acquisition. The project also is closely linked to the USACE because of revetment removal actions and flow modification programs on the McKenzie and Santiam Rivers. Because of its overarching goal of restoring floodplain habitats, it is closely aligned to the Willamette subbasin plan and the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Plan.

One of the emerging limiting factors identified by the project was climate change. It is anticipated that as temperature regimes shift the availability of cold water, habitats along the mainstem will decrease. Restoration activities are expected to provide access to, or maintain such areas. Another future limiting factor is the expansion of urban areas and increasing levels of aggregate mining and agriculture. These increases will influence how much of the floodplain can be managed for conservation purposes. An incomplete understanding of how fish use this portion of the Willamette and the conditions in a floodplain that benefit fish were also recognized problems. Additionally, all the existing flood control infrastructure, dams, and revetments constrain how much of the floodplain can be restored.

Another limiting factor, although not discussed in the proposal, is the presence of agricultural and industrial contaminants. As land use in the basin increases there will likely be a rise in their occurrence. Contaminants may cause direct sub-lethal and lethal impacts and indirect effects via alterations in the food web and thus should be considered in future work.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Six deliverables appeared in the proposal. The first one was to develop an action effectiveness monitoring program for floodplain re-vegetation. When completed this AEM program would be used to monitor six re-vegetation programs in the upper Willamette. The remaining five deliverables deal with project solicitation, review, funding, and project administration. These administrative processes appear to be adequately designed and carried out.

Work elements, metrics, and methods are nicely detailed in the RM&E plan found via the website link found in the proposal. 

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Nothing related to this project was found in MonitoringMethods.org. However, the protocols and methods are well detailed in the RM&E plan. The ISRP recommends that the protocols and methods from the RM&E program be entered directly in the proposal, plus in the MonitoringMethods.org website.

The ISRP commends the project sponsors for developing a well-designed program that is worthy of further support. It provides a way for non-profits, local governments, and private and public landowners to participate in the recovery of important floodplain habitats in the Willamette Basin. Its prioritization of restoration areas, project review, and selection processes appear well founded. Its actions are fulfilling the Willamette BiOp and the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program goals and objectives.

The proposal meets scientific review criteria. However, the ISRP recommends that the sponsors consider the suggestions and recommendations made in the following sections of the proposal.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project responds closely to the priorities and action items in the Willamette Subbasin Plan and the Willamette BiOp. The BiOp identified two Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs 7.1.2 and 7.1.3) that needed to be addressed in the Willamette River Basin. The requirements of the RPAs were to establish a program to identify habitat restoration projects and to select and implement at least two restoration projects per year from 2011-2023. The Willamette Bi-Op Habitat Restoration project meets these needs. It is good to see that the project sponsors are realistic, and they articulate the limitations of the impact that habitat restoration can have in this highly modified system.

This is an important regional program. The lower Willamette River is tidal and should be managed as part of the estuary-river continuum that was recognized in the recent ISAB review of the Fish and Wildlife Program (ISAB 2013-1). While the sponsors acknowledge this linkage they only mention it in passing under Additional Relationships Explanation. Future proposals need to provide a more detailed explanation of why this linkage has not been developed.

The four project objectives are straightforward and outcomes easily tracked. Progress on all of these objectives has been made. Protocols for identifying and prioritizing areas for restoration and performing status and trend monitoring have been established. Additionally, methods for soliciting project proposals; creating scientific review teams; and reviewing, selecting, and funding projects have been installed. The project is serving an important role in identifying, selecting, funding, and monitoring floodplain restoration projects in the Willamette River Basin.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

When the project first began, outreach efforts were directed toward agricultural and gravel mining landowners to identify areas that would allow expanded floodplain use. At the same time properties were purchased and restoration work was begun on previously acquired land. So far approximately 2,800 acres of conserved land has been acquired and 480 acres of floodplain has been reforested.

Since its inception, the project has refined and adjusted how it selects, prioritizes, and monitors habitat restoration projects. For example, it funded the development of a map of the Willamette Basin which shows the parts of the floodplain that will be inundated with a two-year flood. This information has been coupled with the occurrence of anchor habitats, that is areas that can support cold water fishes, to help prioritize where recovery work should take place. The project has also completed a draft of a monitoring and evaluation plan which will be used to track status and trends in restored areas. Additionally, it is currently seeking a quantitative method that can be used to assess its reforestation efforts in floodplain areas. The project is accomplishing its restoration objectives and appears to be adjusting its methods as new information becomes available. This is a good initiative and is line with ISAB recommendations for a true landscape approach to habitat restoration in the Columbia River Basin.

The sponsors describe ongoing changes and continuing reassessment of success. As such there does not seem to be adaptive management in the sense of designing experiments with the intention of using results to adaptively manage. Rather, the approach seems to focus on a series of modifications to improve the project selection process as well as restoration strategies. Future changes in projects will be based on results, for example, results of re-vegetation will guide future plantings.

Evaluation of Results

This is a fairly new project so there are not many results to report yet. The 2011 Annual report detailing the Green Island levee removal showed, with photos, that after the levee removal, a high flow event occurred in 2011 and the floodplain area was covered with up to 3.5 feet of water which had not happened since the mid 1960s. Also non-native invasive plants have been reduced by removal and new plantings of native species planted. Early data on monitoring of fish distribution and abundance indicated that there appeared to be an indication that more complex habitats contained higher species richness and abundance than less complex habitats.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The sponsors clearly identify relationships to other projects and to limiting factors in the region. The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Meyer Memorial Trust, and the Willamette Special Investment Partnership have formed a partnership to perform this project. This group collaborates with the Willamette Action Team for Ecosystem Restoration and a Habitat Technical Team. It is also receives cost sharing support from the Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program for land acquisition. The project also is closely linked to the USACE because of revetment removal actions and flow modification programs on the McKenzie and Santiam Rivers. Because of its overarching goal of restoring floodplain habitats, it is closely aligned to the Willamette subbasin plan and the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Plan.

One of the emerging limiting factors identified by the project was climate change. It is anticipated that as temperature regimes shift the availability of cold water, habitats along the mainstem will decrease. Restoration activities are expected to provide access to, or maintain such areas. Another future limiting factor is the expansion of urban areas and increasing levels of aggregate mining and agriculture. These increases will influence how much of the floodplain can be managed for conservation purposes. An incomplete understanding of how fish use this portion of the Willamette and the conditions in a floodplain that benefit fish were also recognized problems. Additionally, all the existing flood control infrastructure, dams, and revetments constrain how much of the floodplain can be restored.

Another limiting factor, although not discussed in the proposal, is the presence of agricultural and industrial contaminants. As land use in the basin increases there will likely be a rise in their occurrence. Contaminants may cause direct sub-lethal and lethal impacts and indirect effects via alterations in the food web and thus should be considered in future work.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Six deliverables appeared in the proposal. The first one was to develop an action effectiveness monitoring program for floodplain re-vegetation. When completed this AEM program would be used to monitor six re-vegetation programs in the upper Willamette. The remaining five deliverables deal with project solicitation, review, funding, and project administration. These administrative processes appear to be adequately designed and carried out.

Work elements, metrics, and methods are nicely detailed in the RM&E plan found via the website link found in the proposal. 

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Nothing related to this project was found in MonitoringMethods.org. However, the protocols and methods are well detailed in the RM&E plan. The ISRP recommends that the protocols and methods from the RM&E program be entered directly in the proposal, plus in the MonitoringMethods.org website.