Willamette Basin Mitigation proposal 199206800

FY07-09 proposal 199206800

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Willamette Basin Mitigation
Proposal ID	199206800
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW)
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.
Information transfer	Program information including individual project activities and results will be summarized in quarterly and annual reporting to BPA and the NPCC.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Contacts

Contact	Organization	Email
Form submitter
Michael Pope	Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife	Michael.D.Pope@state.or.us
All assigned contacts
Michael Pope	Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife	Michael.D.Pope@state.or.us

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / Willamette

Latitude	Longitude	Waterbody	Description
45.3856	-122.4512	Clackamas	Clackamas Scenic HWY-south of Damascus
43.9224	-122.8070	Coast and Middle Fork of Willamette River	Middle Fork Willamette from Dexter to Confluence of Coast Fork
44.5882	-123,4172	Mary's River	Cardwell Hills: Just north of Wren on Mary's River
44.1253	-123.1069	McKenzie and Willamette Rivers	Green Island: Confluence of McKenzie and Willamette Rivers
44.1106	-123.0411	McKenzie River	Big Island: east of Springfield, adjacent to McKenzie River
43.9485	-122,8469	Middle Fork of Willamette River	Elijah Bristow State Park-south of Dexter Dam
44.0225	-123.0177	MIddle Fork Willamette River and Lost Creek	Mt. Pisgah/Buford Park-confluence of Coast and Middle Fork of Willamette River south of Eugene
44.5330	-123.12792	Muddy Crk	Herbert Farms:on Muddy Creek, south Corvallis
44.6997	-123.2125	Near Soap Creek	EE Wilson Wildlife Area-1 mile north of Adair Village
44.84	-122.95	North Santiam	North Santiam Flats-southeast of Salem
45.0603	-123.5664	South Yamhill	South Yamhill River, west of Grand Ronde on Hwy 18
44.4348	-123.2090	Willamette River	Snag Boat Landing-south of Peoria on Willamette River

Section 3. Focal species

primary: All Wildlife
Additional: 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

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishments
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1997	1) Complete confluence hydrologic report 2) Completed HEP sampling and final report for HEP at confluence 3) Assembled Alternatives Team and produced recommnedations
1996	1) Completed graduate project for Western pond turtle, 2) Planning and design ofr Willamette Basin-wide mitgation project, 3) Complete Confluence GIS atlas
1995	1) Western pond turtle conservation planning and background information on potential mitigation sites
1994	1) Develop Willamette Basin-wide Consevation Planning for Western pond turtle 2) Background information on potential mitigation sites
1993	1) Continue Western pond turtle research and monitoring 2) Develop GAP guidelines for habitat determination for mitigation
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

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding source	Related ID	Related title	Relationship
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 will be a partner with OWEB in funding this work in 2007.
[Funding Source left blank]	[no entry]		[Relationship field left blank]
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.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectives	Full description	Associated subbasin plan	Strategy
Connect diverse habitats	The Willamette Valley is perhaps the most fragmented watershed in the Columbia Basin with 96% of land in private ownership of parcels <100 ac. Consequently, re-connecting disparate habitats that provide life history needs for multiple species is increasingly important.	Willamette	A favorable distribution of habitats increases the capacity of different species and life stages functioning across a greater geographic range and minimizes the risk of species lost.
Hydrologic evaluations of restoration sites	The key to understanding and implementing flow patterns 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 ecological conditions on the Middle and Coast forks of the Willamette River and for analyzing the ecological benefits and costs associated with floodplain restoration alternatives.
Identify and inventory areas for restoration	The significant declines in distribution and size of focal habitats identified in the Willamette Subbasin Plan necessitates the need to identify and map areas that contain these habitats.	Willamette	Terrestrial monitoring and research should include addressing critical data gaps such as the lack of information on habitat quality and quantity.
Implement Willamette Floodplain Restoration Plan	Installation of flood control and hydro-electric facilaties on many rivers has altered flow regimes and resulted in unfavorable water temperatures for many aquatic species and reduced the interactions between rivers and their natural floodplains.	Willamette	Achieve more natural flow and water regimes. The composition and density of many terrestrial species is correlated with naturally occurring flow regimes including periodic innudations.
Increase interaction between rivers and floodplain	Floodplain connections with river systems particularly side channel and back water areas have been blocked 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.
Install woody debris for habitat diversity	The lack of refugia in back water habitats has contributed to the decline of many aquatic species in many areas of the Willamette Basin. Installing large woody debris has proved to be an effective approach to restoring riverine and floodplain functions including refugia for aquatic species.	Willamette	Increase supply and recruitment of large down and dead wood in focal habitat areas including riparian and backwater habitats.
Monitor and evaluate restoration activities	A clear link needs to be made between on-the- ground restoration activities and the response of native species. The adaptive management phase of any restoration or enhancement project should include monitoring and evaluating the response of critical species to actions implemented under a management plan.	Willamette	Decisions on restoration directions and methodolgies should arise from evalutions of monitoring data collected systematically at restoration sites.
Plant native vegetation (trees and shrubs)	Riparian functions and habitats have been extensively impacted by the reduction of interactions between rivers and streams and adjacent riparian habitats. Many riparian habitats have been altered through agricultural conversions, native vegatation removal, and the introduction of exotic specis.	Willamette	Restore degraded and lost riparian areas through replantings and conserve existing remnant high quality riparian habitats through acquisitions and easements.
Remove and control harmful exotic species	Habitats and their associated native species have been severely impacted by the introduction of non-native invasive species that have readily adapted to the mild climatic conditions in the Willamette Basin.	Willamette	Systematically remove or control harmful exotics through seasonal prescribed burning, mowing, and herbicide applications. Replant with native vegatation when invasives are controlled or eradicated.
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 subbasin and resulted in the decline of oak woodlands and savannas, riparian bottomland hardwood forests, wet and upland prairies, wetlands, and old growth conifer forests. Given the widespread declines restoring these habitats is of critical importance particularly to closely associated species such as Fender's blue butterflys, Taylor's checkerspot, northern red-legged frogs, and western pond turtles.	Willamette	Increase the extent and distribution of focal habitats through acquisitions, easements, restorations and enhancements.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element name	Work element title	Description	Start date	End date	Est budget
Identify and Select Projects	Coordinate with Landtrusts and Subcontractors to identify, prioritize, assess, and select restoration projects	ODFW's Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program coordinates with the most active Landtrusts in the Willamette Basin to identify potential wildlife projects for mitigation funding. Included in the coordination is the need to link projects to Subbasin, Regional, and Conservation priorities.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$29,529
Biological objectives Identify and inventory areas for restoration			Metrics
Produce Inventory or Assessment	Identify, inventory, and map Oregon white oak and ponderosa habitats in Willamette Valley. Produce assessments of prairie, riparian, and oak woodland habitats in Cardwell Hills area adjacent to Mary's River	Prodcue a comprehensive inventory and GIS database of current locations and descriptions for Oregon white oak habitats in the Willamette Valley. Produce an ecological and GIS assessement of prairie, riparian, and upland habitats in Cardwell Hills.	1/1/2007	9/30/2007	$58,000
Biological objectives Identify and inventory areas for restoration			Metrics
Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities	Conduct habitat evaluations for Pre-acquisition activities including landowner outreach, pre-acquisition appraisals.	Conduct pre-acquisition activities including initial title searches, appraisals, biological assessements, and planning for potentially new acquisition and easements.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$60,000
Biological objectives Restore and conserve physical habitats			Metrics
Coordination	Coordinate restoration and acquisition activities	Coordinate, manage, and administer restoration activities of subcontractors, facilitate budgets and planning, develop contracts, and prioritize projects. Costs include staff salary, services, supplies, travel, OPE, and indirect costs.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$573,581
Biological objectives Restore and conserve physical habitats			Metrics
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation	Provide NEPA compliance for easements and acquisitions	Provide required NEPA compliance analysis (HAZ-MAT etc) to BPA for new easements and acquisitions.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$50,000
Biological objectives Restore and conserve physical habitats			Metrics
Land Purchase	Acquire conservation easements and fee title to land parcels for wildlife mitigation	Identify, assess, and acquire critical wildlife habitats for mitigation in the Willamette Basin. Purchase of easements or fee titles will assist in resolving outstanding credits to BPA.	1/1/2007	1/1/2010	$8,500,000
Biological objectives Restore and conserve physical habitats			Metrics * # of acres of new purchase/easement: 2000 # of HU's protected by land purchase or easement: 1600
Produce Plan	Produce management plans under BPA compliance guidelines	Facilitate, coordinate, and produce final management plans for Herbert Farms, Sorenson Pasture, Green Island, and other easement and acquisition sites.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$40,000
Biological objectives Restore and conserve physical habitats			Metrics
Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland	Create emergent wetlands on North Santiam parcels, Snag Boat Bend, Green Island, Big Island, Buford Park, and EE Wilson Wildlife Area	Create and restore through excavation, exotic species control, and berm construction emergent and permanent wetlands.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$170,000
Biological objectives Restore and conserve physical habitats			Metrics * # of acres treated: 200 ac
Conduct Controlled Burn	Conduct controlled burn in wet and upland prairie habitats to control exotics and enhance native annuals	Conduct control burns at oak savanna, wet prairie, and upland prairie sites on E.E.Wilson, Green Island, and Snag Boat Bend.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$50,000
Biological objectives Restore and conserve physical habitats			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	Collect hydrologic and hydrogeomorphic data from Green Island, Big Island, Middle Fork and Coast Fork Willamettes, Herbert Farms, and Buford Park	Collect data to determine seasonal flow regimes and innundation levels for restoration planning (back water and floodplain enhancements). Data includes information collected for Willamette Floodplain Restoration Project.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$180,000
Biological objectives Hydrologic evaluations of restoration sites			Metrics
Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel	Realign and reconnect back water channels on Buford Park, Big Island, Green Island, and Snag Boat Bend.	Reconnect mainstem water systems with floodplain side channels by removing barriers, excavating filed areas, and controlling vegetation.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$143,000
Biological objectives Increase interaction between rivers and floodplain			Metrics * # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 5 miles
Maintain Vegetation	Maintain tree and shrub plantings through mowing and irrigation.	Existing and new proposed plantings will be maintained through seasonal mowing, spraying, and irrigation. Upland and wet prairies may be enhanced through limited disking and/or burning.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$100,000
Biological objectives Increase interaction between rivers and floodplain			Metrics
Enhance Floodplain	Install woody debris on Big Island, Green Island, and remove fish passage restrictions at Snag Boat Bend	Restore floodplain functions by addition of large woody debris in approximately 2 km of side channel habitats. Remove fish passage barriers, excavate and expand slough habitats, and securely place large down wood within newly reconnected slough habitats.	3/1/2007	9/30/2009	$100,000
Biological objectives Install woody debris for habitat diversity			Metrics * # of acres treated: 40 ac
Plant Vegetation	Plant trees and shrubs at Buford Park, Big Island, Green Island, North Santiam, Snag Boat Bend, E.E. Wilson, and Herbert Farms	Trees and shrubs will be planted to restore bottomland hardwood forests. Areas may be re-seeded with native annuals to restore upland and wet prairies.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$180,000
Biological objectives Plant native vegetation (trees and shrubs)			Metrics * # of acres of planted: 600
Remove vegetation	Remove or control harmful invasive vegetation to enhance native vegetation	Harmful exotic vegetation will be sprayed, mowed, or hand-pulled/plowed to allow for re-establishment of native vegetation and improve hydrology.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$200,000
Biological objectives Remove and control harmful exotic species			Metrics * # of acres treated: 3000 ac
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs	Complete feasibility phase of Willamette Floodplain study and begin implementation phase.	In 2007, the feasibility phase (EDT modelling HEC-RAS, Hydrologic analysis etc) will be completed and Implementation (restoration) phase will begin. The Elijah Bristow and Buford Park projects will be included in the implementation phase.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$50,000
Biological objectives Implement Willamette Floodplain Restoration Plan			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	Collect field data to monitor and evaluate restoration activities, and to assess biological conditions at acquisition/easement sites	Collect data on floral and faunal responses to restoration activities and baseline data during pre-restoration period.	1/1/2007	10/1/2009	$120,000
Biological objectives Monitor and evaluate restoration activities			Metrics
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs	Develop ecologically based HEP for Willamette assessments	HEP will be revised to establish an assessment process that prioritizes ecological condition of habitats based on high quality reference sites. The new procedure will be used to quantify habitat units at potential acquisition and easement sites.	10/1/2006	9/30/2009	$30,000
Biological objectives Monitor and evaluate restoration activities			Metrics
Prepare HEP Report	Prepare HEP (with Revised HEP) report for Sorenson, Herbert, Green Island, and new projects	Coordinate and complete HEP evaluations for crediting of loss assessements.	1/1/2007	9/30/2009	$45,000
Biological objectives Monitor and evaluate restoration activities			Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Item	Note	FY07	FY08	FY09
Personnel	Fish and Wildlife Bio. 3 Project Manager (1.0 FTE)	$47,460	$49,452	$52,200
Personnel	OPE (54%) for Fish and Wildlife Bio. 3	$25,628	$26,866	$28,188
Supplies	Hardware and specialized computer software (GIS software upgrade etc)	$2,000	$2,070	$2,142
Supplies	Computer upgrade (office desktop upgrade and laptop upgrade)	$2,000	$2,070	$2,142
Supplies	Office supplies (books,paper,pencils & pens, printer ink, etc.)	$2,000	$2,070	$2,142
Supplies	Printing costs (documents, diagrams, reports, handouts, etc.)	$2,000	$2,070	$2,142
Supplies	Meeting supplies and services (handouts, rental equipment,services)	$400	$414	$428
Supplies	Photocopies and faxes	$1,000	$1,035	$1,071
Supplies	Copy of digital aerial photography for restoration areas	$1,200	$1,242	$1,285
Supplies	Enhancement (spraying and planting) and supplies (plant material, tools, equipment, etc.) for E.E. Wildife Area restoration	$27,080	$27,605	$28,148
Supplies	Telecommunications- 1 cell phone-	$600	$621	$643
Supplies	Pre-acquisition activities (reality services, appraisals, title searches, biological assessments etc)	$25,000	$25,700	$26,425
Overhead	Overhead (Federal/State negotiated rate (Base rate = 0.3587)	$47,733	$49,735	$52,493
Travel	Vehicle (1 SUV)- Motor Pool Rental 12 months at $500.mo	$6,000	$6,210	$6,427
Travel	Mileage (.21/mile) 2000-2200 month/12 months	$5,040	$5,216	$5,399
Travel	Out-of-state Travel (4-5 trips/ yr at $500/trip to Conferences and training)	$2,000	$2,074	$2,142
Travel	In-state Travel-10-12 trips/year at $80/trip)	$800	$828	$857
Other	Subcontract for USCOE Willamette Floodplain Study	$65,000	$65,000	$60,000
Other	Subcontract for Willamette Partnership (Floodplain Study)	$50,000	$0	$0
Other	Subcotract with Friends of Buford Park for Sorenson and South Meadow Restoration	$90,500	$90,500	$90,500
Other	Subcontract for McKenzie River Trust for Green Island Enhancement and Management Planning	$91,664	$91,644	$91,644
Other	Subcontract for Muddy Creek (Herbert Farms) Management and Enhancement	$20,000	$20,000	$28,171
Other	Subcontract for David Evans and Associates for Habitat Delineations and Assessments for Cardwell Hills (Mary's River Watershed)	$18,000	$0	$0
Other	Subcontract for E.E. Wilson Wetland Enhancements	$17,477	$17,477	$17,477
Other	Subcontract for McKenzie River Trust Big Island Management Plans (Implementation of Planning Goals)	$32,075	$35,744	$35,744
Other	Subcontract with NHI for Shenk Oak Upland Restoration	$39,500	$39,500	$39,500
Other	Subcontract for NHI for Oak Savannah/Ponderosa Pine Inventory and Mapping	$44,500	$0	$0
Other	Subctontract for HEP Revisions and Assessments	$10,000	$10,000	$10,000
Other	Subcontract for Snag Boat Bend Restoration	$30,000	$30,000	$30,000
Other	Subcontract for Elijah Bristow/Lost Creek Restoration	$25,000	$25,000	$25,000
Other	Subcontract for North Santiam Restortion	$35,000	$40,000	$40,000
Other	Subcontract for E.E. Wilson Upland Restoration	$0	$30,000	$30,000
Other	Capital Funds: Land Acquisitions and Conservation Easements	$2,000,000	$3,250,000	$3,250,000
Totals		$2,766,657	$3,950,143	$3,962,310

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Total itemized budget:	$10,679,110
Total work element budget:	$10,679,110

Cost sharing

Funding source/org	Item or service provided	FY 07 est value ($)	FY 08 est value ($)	FY 09 est value ($)	Cash or in-kind?	Status
BLM	Grant	$15,000	$0	$0	Cash	Under Review
Fish America Foundation	Grant	$0	$50,000	$0	Cash	Under Development
Friends of Buford Park	In-kind: Work Services	$25,000	$25,000	$0	In-Kind	Confirmed
McKenzie River Trust	In-kind:Work Services	$100,000	$50,000	$50,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
Middle/Coast Fork Watershed Council	In-kind: Work Services	$15,000	$15,000	$15,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
NFWF	Conservation Grant	$25,000	$0	$0	Cash	Under Review
NFWF	Grant	$50,000	$0	$0	Cash	Confirmed
NHI	In-kind: Work Services	$15,000	$15,000	$15,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
NHI	In-kind: Work Services	$12,000	$12,000	$12,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
NOAA	Grant	$0	$50,000	$0	Cash	Under Development
NRCS	Grant-WHIP	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	Cash	Confirmed
ODFW	In-kind: Work Services	$25,000	$15,000	$0	In-Kind	Confirmed
OWEB	Grant	$0	$20,000	$0	Cash	Under Development
OWEB	Grant	$20,000	$0	$0	Cash	Under Development
OWEB	Grant	$100,000	$40,000	$0	Cash	Confirmed
TNC	SRP-Grant	$65,000	$65,000	$65,000	Cash	Confirmed
TNC	In-kind: Work Services	$35,000	$35,000	$35,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
USCOE	Grant-Congressional Allocation	$436,000	$75,000	$400,000	Cash	Confirmed
USFS	Grant	$15,000	$0	$0	Cash	Under Review
USFWS	Grant-NAWCA	$35,000	$35,000	$35,000	Cash	Under Review
USFWS	In-kind: Work Services	$75,000	$0	$0	In-Kind	Under Development
Totals		$1,113,000	$552,000	$677,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $3,350,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $3,350,000

Comments: Approximately $750,000 for both FY2010 and FY2011 for the expense side of the budget (Personal Services, Supplies, and restoration subcontracts. Approximately $2,500,000/yr for easements and acquisiitons.

Future O&M costs: O&M-Funding will need to be continued for on-going projects. For Green Island-approximately $85,000 will be needed for each year with the expectation that this need may increase as the Management Plan goals are gradually implemented. Funding at Big Island (Thurston) will likely increase to about $40,000 as management objectives are fully implemented including stream restoration for Oregon Chub and wetland restoration. Herbert Farms (Muddy Creek) will likely need about $30,000/yr for restoration and O&M. Sorrenson Pasture will nee approximately $30,000/yr for O&M and continuing restoration. Potential new acquisitions from 2007-2009 will account for an additional $60,000-120,000 in O&M to primarily cover development of Management Plans and initial costs for enhancement and maintenance.

Termination date: None
Comments: 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.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

[Attached Document]

Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget	FY08 budget	FY09 budget	Total budget	Type	Category	Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$2,000,000	$3,250,000	$3,250,000	$8,500,000	Capital	ProvinceCapital	Fund
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$760,657	$694,143	$706,310	$2,161,110	Expense	ProvinceExpense	Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$760,657	$694,143	$706,310	$0		ProvinceExpense
Comments: Expense portion. Wildlife O&M & M&E for land. ISRP fund in part, issue is programmatic m&e for wildlife. See capital budget for capital recommendation.
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$2,000,000	$3,250,000	$3,250,000	$0		ProvinceCapital

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The proposal is for a large-scale effort in habitat acquisition, enhancement, restoration and management. Consistent with the Subbasin Plan, State plans, and conservation NGO strategies, this proposal appears to be part of a well-coordinated, regional effort. This project (really a program of many interrelated projects) has been going on for 13 years. There are 13-14 ongoing projects that include routine restoration or maintenance activities, but rarely monitoring. Is this program intended to operate projects indefinitely? New projects expand the scope of the program along the same trajectory. The long-term benefits to fish and wildlife are not as clearly described as necessary. Exactly how projects listed will benefit focal species, other than "habitat restoration" is not given, nor are non-focal or pest species that might benefit from projects described. It is likely that there will be some adverse effects on non-focal species, so these should be assessed and management plans described. To put the current proposal in context, it would be useful to have a summary of acres affected by category: acquisition, addition to existing conservation lands, flow restoration, exotic species removed, etc. An analysis of the cost/HU of various strategies could probably be derived at this point to enhance biological priority criteria. Further, it would be useful to see what percent of funding for different projects has come from, and is proposed to come from the Fish and Wildlife Program. The project history provides some, but not sufficient, assessment of progress that the ISRP requested last year. The numerous objectives in the proposal will require significant administration to track progress of overall project. Timelines are not clear, nor are metrics for future assessment of accomplishments. The ISRP requests a more complete description of how progress will be monitored. Measurable objectives are not always listed. For instance, the objective "remove exotic vegetation" may not be achievable by any currently known means. Work elements are often stated in terms of amount of habitat obtained or restored rather than in terms of fish and wildlife outcomes. The ISRP requests that authors address fish and wildlife responses. The ISRP believes that management plans have been completed for some sites and would like to see a description of monitoring methods. Procedures have been available during this project that should now be driving a feedback loop that is not apparent. The ISRP requests a description of how this loop functions. The proposal identifies some M&E efforts as part of work elements, but does not provide enough details to evaluate. Even implementation monitoring would be difficult given the information provided. Many proposals do not include metrics, and it appears monitoring is just now being addressed with initial development of reference sites and procedures. The goals of monitoring are stated quite differently in different sections. The intent to "monitor extensively" is followed by "may" monitor various system components, but why, or how is too vague to be credible and appears to be an add-on. The proposal to turn responsibility over to graduate students to develop sample designs and conduct sampling and data analysis is inappropriate and will not ensure quality results over the long-term. Objectives of the analysis, the sample design, and data to be collected should be clearly described in advance of projects, not left to students to develop later. In addition to quarterly reports, strategies for sharing successes and lessons learned with others involved in similar mitigation activities is recommended. The response should describe the data to be generated, stored, or analyzed. The land acquisition portion of this proposal is fundable. It defines the problem of land acquisition where only small parcels are available and the methods for prioritizing, selecting, and acquiring properties are sound. Monitoring is a critical element for a project of this duration. It appears that monitoring and adaptive management are still not a priority and it may fall to the Council's funding decisions to emphasize the importance of this project element. The management, monitoring and evaluation portions of the proposal require a response before the ISRP can reach a final recommendation.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The proposal is for a large-scale effort in habitat acquisition, enhancement, restoration and management. Consistent with the Subbasin Plan, State plans, and conservation NGO strategies, this proposal appears to be part of a well-coordinated, regional effort. This project (really a program of many interrelated projects) has been going on for 13 years. There are 13-14 ongoing projects that include routine restoration or maintenance activities, but rarely monitoring. New projects expand the scope of the program along the same trajectory. The land acquisition portion of this proposal is fundable. It defines the problem of land acquisition where only small parcels are available and the methods for prioritizing, selecting, and acquiring properties are sound. Beyond the pending acquisitions, the remainder of the proposal is fundable in part. The ISRP recommends funding for FY07 only to allow an assessment of past work. Future funding of the active management component of the budget should be contingent upon a meaningful quantitative and qualitative analysis of project accomplishments to date, in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife. Formal monitoring and informal observational results should be synthesized and analyzed in terms of lessons learned and future modifications needed in management and /or monitoring procedures. The preliminary review requested a response to concerns about monitoring and evaluation: “The project history provides some, but not sufficient, assessment of progress that the ISRP requested last year [referring to the ISRP’s review of this project in the Provincial and FY00 reviews]. The numerous objectives in the proposal will require significant administration to track progress of overall project. Timelines are not clear, nor are metrics for future assessment of accomplishments. The ISRP requests a more complete description of how progress will be monitored. Measurable objectives are not always listed. For instance, the objective ‘remove exotic vegetation’ may not be achievable by any currently known means. Work elements are often stated in terms of amount of habitat obtained or restored rather than in terms of fish and wildlife outcomes. The ISRP requests that authors address fish and wildlife responses. The ISRP believes that management plans have been completed for some sites and would like to see a description of monitoring methods. Procedures have been available during this project that should now be driving a feedback loop that is not apparent. The ISRP requests a description of how this loop functions. The proposal identifies some M&E efforts as part of work elements, but does not provide enough details to evaluate. Even implementation monitoring would be difficult given the information provided. Many proposals do not include metrics, and it appears monitoring is just now being addressed with initial development of reference sites and procedures. Objectives of the analysis, the sample design, and data to be collected should be clearly described in advance of projects. In addition to quarterly reports, strategies for sharing successes and lessons learned with others involved in similar mitigation activities is recommended. The response should describe the data to be generated, stored, or analyzed.” Monitoring is a critical element for a project of this duration. The response provided indications that the sponsors are aware of the need for effective monitoring and evaluation in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife but that they feel constrained by logistics, other reporting requirements, and by the difficulty of detecting changes to fish and wildlife during the early stages of projects and/or on small scattered parcels. The ISRP is not convinced by their argument as many other wildlife projects have set up monitoring that is consistent with what is requested by the ISRP. The Albeni Falls Monitoring Plan is one that has been reviewed by the ISRP and found exemplary. Sponsors are currently involved in development of "a revised HEP/Habitat value method that is based on structural and compositional values (ecological components) of mitigation sites and an evaluation of risk factors (such as presence and abundance of exotic invasives) to those sites." The use of HEP (revised or not) may be required for accounting purposes, but it is not seen by the ISRP as an effective monitoring tool The monitoring plans included in the response are monitoring objectives in general terms: "species population surveys or estimates will be completed each year for ...(species)." No methods or goals for a population are included or even if particular life stages or seasons are targeted for monitoring. In the case of South Meadow, monitoring includes elements such as acres treated, relative cover of weed species, but not who will do this when, where the data will go, when it will be evaluated, by whom or what will trip an adaptive management response. In the future, it may be difficult to use these data to improve restoration approaches. The sponsors are no doubt doing a difficult job with many uncertainties. The ISRP encourages the sponsors to view monitoring as a means of documenting project success and learning from projects in order to improve the success of future efforts. Reference is made to informal information sharing among project participants as an informal feedback loop. While useful, this does little to institutionalize or document lessons learned in an environment where the authors note that little validated restoration technology exists. Synthesis and publication of monitoring and evaluation data will maximize the value of project investments in terms of future benefits to fish and wildlife.