Although the project has not accomplished many of the issues raised by the ISRP in the preliminary review, the proponents have adequately described how they plan to address them. The proponents provided more details about the objectives for their properties (wetland restoration, riparian forest restoration, oak savannah restoration, and the Wapato Lake restoration); however, most lacked a time element. They also provided enough information for reviewers to understand that controlling when proposed activities will take place is difficult because much of the proposed restoration work depends on the acquisition of outside funding. Additionally, reviewers were pleased to read that past monitoring results of wildlife and vegetation response is currently being summarized. The administrative and restoration components identified in the ISRP review would strengthen the project. The ISRP looks forward to future progress reports, and in the next ISRP review we will evaluate the extent to which our comments and concerns were addressed. 

Oleson Tract

The Oleson Tract restoration actions have been implemented for several years. The proponents provided quantifiable objectives for the restoration components, but these do not include explicit timelines or response thresholds for achieving the intended results. For example, it is stated that management actions for Riparian Forest habitat over the next five years will focus on monitoring plant survival and releasing young plantings from competition with aggressive non-native invasive plant species, particularly Himalayan blackberry and reed canary grass. There is no quantitative description of desired survival for young plantings or for desired level of control of aggressive non-native species. Additionally, there is only minimal description of current conditions. The proponents would be better able to incorporate adaptive management if they could compare their results with an expected trajectory of site conditions and ecological responses. 

Monitoring of the Oleson Tract to date is limited to visual assessment and professional judgment, but the proponents are working to develop a formal monitoring program in the near future. The proponents indicate that new management at the refuge is starting to synthesize 38 past quantitative information. Such data and assessment is an important component for refuge management and should be publicly available and archived for ongoing assessments of resource status and trends on the project’s two restoration sites. These analyses will be extremely useful in future reviews of the project. The response from the proponents notes that “Adaptive management actions will be triggered by plant community composition within respective habitat types. While a formal protocol has not been finalized, the Refuge is currently developing a grid based approach to mapping vegetative cover on Refuge Management Units and will pilot this monitoring strategy at the Oleson wetlands during summer 2017.” The decision-making and adaptive management process identified in the response and management plans would be strengthened substantially by establishing an explicit plan for implementation, monitoring, analysis, review, and development of subsequent actions. The responsibility, timing, and details of that process are not identified in the management plans provided. We expect that a complete analysis of the past monitoring results and a description of a formal adaptive management process will be presented in the next major review of the project. 

Wapato Lake 

The Wapato Lake addition is in the early stages of acquisition, analysis, and selection of preferred actions. The proponents have developed a thorough analysis of three possible alternatives and appear to be making significant process in developing their preferred alternative. Quantifiable objectives are being developed utilizing an interdisciplinary, multiagency team. As indicated in our review, these objectives should have explicit timelines so progress and trajectories of restoration can be tracked through monitoring and adaptive management. To complement the development of management objectives the project should establish a formal adaptive management process (assessment and/or monitoring, timing, participation, decision responsibilities).

The sponsors document an impressive increase in post-restoration waterfowl counts and shorebird records at the Oleson wetlands. The vegetation survey plots seem adequate to the monitoring program. They have learned from the relatively poor survival of the first year plantings (don't plant too late in the growing season) and have incorporated these lessons into subsequent efforts. The response shows that the Tualatin NWR staff is continuing to improve their monitoring program and is practicing adaptive management.

The summary responses indicate past management successes and failures. The sponsors appear committed to continuous improvement of management techniques. The use of stratified (systematic random vegetation transects, bird point count surveys in open and forested habitat, and winter waterfowl counts, and marsh bird surveys) provide data to support project evaluation. Reporting percent survival of planted species is noteworthy and applauded.

Data summaries such as are presented are useful and increase confidence in the project. The sponsors are encouraged in the future to determine if sustained changes are statistically significant. This would be an excellent location to add amphibian studies and this might be considered in the CCP process. Nearby colleges could be a helpful resource for monitoring, and questions of scale, urbanization and climate change could all be addressed, thus contributing to knowledge of these vulnerable species.

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

The expected outcome of this ongoing project would be the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on the site, while also maintaining and increasing associated habitat values for target and other wildlife species. The 179.5 Habitat Units (HUs) generated by the 2001 HEP would be protected and maintained, while an additional estimated 230+ HUs would also be provided through enhancement activities. Note that the ISRP does not recommend HEP as a vegetation-monitoring tool.

The proposed project will continue habitat restoration features that should benefit wildlife species as well as listed anadromous and resident fish species. Project activities would include restoration of oak savanna, riparian forest, scrub/shrub wetland, wet meadow prairie, ash woodland, and the enhancement of emergent wetland and mixed coniferous/deciduous forest habitat types.

A concise, yet detailed, response generated confidence in the sponsor's understanding of and commitment to monitoring. Provisions for monitoring and evaluation are adequately described in the response. The project history is briefly summarized in the proposal with more information concerning project effectiveness provided in the response.

The response also addresses a question concerning the downstream highly urbanized conditions that are likely to limit the benefit of this project. More information on how this project contributes to efforts associated with related projects is provided in the response.

Reporting of results is adequate. In the future sponsors are encouraged to describe the adaptive management implications of their results.