FY07-09 proposal 199902500

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / Sandy

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments: Depending on other partners and funding possibilities, it is difficult to project an end date.

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The project is clearly justified and could provide substantial benefits to both fish and wildlife. The sponsors have developed techniques that not only will be useful for this project but also will benefit other large-scale floodplain vegetation restoration projects. The major drawback of the project at this time appears to be the lack of a comprehensive, scientifically sound monitoring program (including effectiveness monitoring) that would quantitatively assess progress toward achieving the goal. Such a program is badly needed and should be instituted at this early stage of restoration. The program should be comprehensive in that it should provide for long-term monitoring of vegetation, wildlife, and fish. The documentation of long-term change in the vegetation and animal communities, like the restoration techniques, would be of great benefit to the region and to other projects. More details are requested on results to date of the monitoring of vegetation and wildlife. The sponsors should give a perspective on needs for monitoring of fish use of the restored habitat. This project is a good example of a restoration project that requires long-term maintenance to ensure long-term benefits to fish and wildlife. Dike removal, which has apparently been delayed by BPA's needs to access their power lines, should proceed. Technical and scientific background: The project is directed at restoring diverse floodplain and river channel habitat that, if accomplished, could benefit both important terrestrial species and fish. The need for such restoration projects is clear, given the scarcity of large floodplain areas in the Portland area. The problem is adequately defined. This section of the proposal would be improved by the addition and brief summary of relevant scientific and technical references. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal addresses specific objectives and strategies found in the Lower Columbia River and Sandy River subbasin plans. These objectives call for habitat restoration for terrestrial indicator species as well as endangered salmon. There is no mention of Biological Opinion issues related to Snake River chinook. Relationships to other projects: The sponsors do not identify collaborative relationships with other projects, except to indicate that two other projects were consolidated into this proposal. The only linkage described in this section is internal (merging of their previous project numbers). The proposal would be improved if a strong collaborative effort with other (ongoing and proposed) related projects were described. Objectives: The objectives are straight-forward and directly related to the restoration goal. However, the measurable benefits to fish and wildlife are not well described. It is unclear how the sponsors will measure progress toward accomplishing objectives related to fish and wildlife. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods for vegetation restoration are well described and the sponsors are clearly competent in methods for vegetation restoration. The methods are clear and primarily describe the techniques employed for restoration. The sponsors have been refining the methods for vegetation restoration since the inception of the project. The sponsors seem to be successfully combating invasive species, deer, and soil quality. In a previous review, the ISRP advised that future funding should be contingent on dike removal. The proponents note that alternatives for dike breaching and complete dike removal will be evaluated. The proponents need to provide more detail methods on this critical objective. Monitoring and evaluation: The sponsors note that funding for monitoring and evaluation is not requested because that activity is conducted by the Forest Service. The proposal would be improved if more detailed methods of Forest Service monitoring and evaluation were provided so that reviewers could determine if these methods are adequate. In addition, coordination of this project with other monitoring and evaluation projects in the lower Columbia River is essential. The sponsors have not proposed a monitoring program for wetland restoration, an important, new part of the proposed project. The results of M&E of the vegetation restoration are described generally and need to be expanded. Data on bird use of the restored area are being monitored but results are not given in the proposal or any of the cited documents. M&E of fish use does not seem to be in place and is not highlighted as a need in the proposal. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The facilities appear adequate. The personnel appear to have expertise in the appropriate disciplines for conduct of the project. The proposal would be improved by the addition of a salmonid expert, as salmon are the primary focal species that is supposed to benefit from this work. Information transfer: This section of the proposal would be strengthened if the sponsors provided more information about information transfer. The databases resulting from this project appear to be maintained by USFS staff but plans for release and long-term storage are not described. If the USFS has such plans they are not evident in the proposal. The sponsors apparently do not publish scientific papers or gray literature. The proposal would be improved if results were published so that others involved in similar restoration projects could benefit from the information on successes and failures. Benefits to focal species: The project could be very beneficial to both terrestrial and aquatic species. The project could contribute to a key general priority, restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, and it could provide some key riparian functions such as food provision. These functions have been compromised by urbanization in the lower Columbia River. If the dike is removed, there are likely to be long-term significant benefits. The utility of the project will be limited unless adequate monitoring is in place to quantitatively document changes in vegetation and animal communities as restoration proceeds. Benefits to non-focal species: The project proposes to restore, on a relatively large scale, both terrestrial and aquatic habitats which, unquestionably, could benefit many non-focal species. The impact of proposed dike breaching will have to be carefully reviewed and presumably will be in the EIS. Invasive species such as purple loosestrife might take over disturbed habitat. Non-salmonid native fish could benefit from increased detritus and food supply.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The sponsor’s response adequately addresses the ISRP’s comments about monitoring. Monitoring is either ongoing or planned for vegetation, neotropical bird migrants, waterfowl, amphibians, and reptiles. Responses are specific and give details, especially with regard to avian monitoring. Fish monitoring is less than adequate, with very sparse baseline data. Although the sponsors are going to accelerate fish monitoring, data will be obtained only in 2006 and 2007. Two years of fish monitoring is insufficient to detect fish responses to long-term habitat change. The sponsors should be encouraged to implement a long-term monitoring program for fish because even if there is a delay in dike breaching, the re-vegetation program underway is supposed to provide benefits to fish such as provision of riparian insects as food. The monitoring program could be tied into some of the proposed or ongoing fish monitoring and/or research on the mainstem Columbia River. The ISRP will expect more detailed information on fish monitoring in subsequent project reviews. Dike removal is planned in 2009. Given the sponsor's additional response to the State/Province project recommendations, the planning and design for dike removal/bridge replacement with potential partners (City of Portland and US Army Corps of Engineers) should continue as a priority. The bridge replacement does seem more appropriate as a BPA capital improvements project. The sponsors propose to report results via consultants' report and web sites. The sponsors should publish some of their data, at least in the grey literature. Information transfer has been mainly through regular annual reports.