Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1991-078-00 - John R. Palensky Wildlife Area Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1991-078-00 - John R. Palensky Wildlife Area
Project Number:
1991-078-00
Title:
John R. Palensky Wildlife Area
Summary:
In 1991, Burlington Bottoms (BB) was the first site in Oregon to be purchased by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) under the Willamette and Columbia River Basins Fish and Wildlife Programs, to provide partial mitigation for the impacts associated with the construction of hydroelectric facilities. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) was contracted by BPA in 1993 to conduct interim management of the BB site, which included completion of a habitat assessment or habitat evaluation procedure (HEP). In addition, a hydrology and hydraulics assessment was also conducted on the site in 1993. Results of the HEP and hydrology study were incorporated into the Environmental Assessment/ Management Plan written in 1994 (DOE/EA-0928). Implementation of the EA/Management Plan began in 1995, and included custodial oversight and habitat restoration projects, including non-native vegetation removal. In 2001, a second management plan was written, titled Five-Year Habitat Management Plan, 2001-2005. This Plan addresses specific goals and objectives to be carried out over a five-year period, using various enhancement strategies to achieve the overall goal of protecting, maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat on the site.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1991
Ending FY:
2014
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Lower Columbia Willamette 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
Other Anadromous
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 25.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 75.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Photos of Vegetation Enhancement Results: Zone 2 - Ovoid spike rush and other native plants now common in Snipe Pond (top photo), while reed canary grass is now absent from some areas.

Figure Name: Figure 2a

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 11

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Photos of Vegetation Enhancement Results: Zone 2 - Photo shows pond dominated by reed canary grass, prior to moist soil management in 2006.

Figure Name: Figure 2b

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 11

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Nodding beggartick (Bidens cernua) and other native emergent plants dominate much of the seasonal ponded habitats. Beggartick is used extensively by native amphibians for oviposition sites.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 12

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 1 – Wapato, bur-reed and other native emergent plants have increased due to moist soil management on Horseshoe Lake (Figure 4a) and Wapato Pond – Zone 3 (Figure 4b) since 2008.

Figure Name: Figure 4a

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 13

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 1 – Wapato, bur-reed and other native emergent plants have increased due to moist soil management on Horseshoe Lake (Figure 4a) and Wapato Pond – Zone 3 (Figure 4b) since 2008.

Figure Name: Figure 4b

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 13

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Collinsia parviflora (Small-flowered blue-eyed Mary), now common in some areas of the ash/cottonwood understory due to removal of invasive species.

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 14

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 1 – North Creek prior to restoration in 1998.

Figure Name: Figure 6a

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 1 – A restored creek and riparian area in 2010 after invasive species removal and establishment of willows, spiraea, sedges, and a variety of other native shrubs and wetland plants.

Figure Name: Figure 6b

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 15

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 3 – Japanese knotweed prior to treatment.

Figure Name: Figure 7a

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 16

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 3 – Japanese knotweed patch reduced significantly after treatment.

Figure Name: Figure 7b

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 16

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 1 - Scrub/shrub habitat near N. Creek/S. Pond after treatment and planting of ninebark, mahonia, red-flowering currant and other shrubs.

Figure Name: Figure 8a

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 17

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923

Zone 1 - Scrub/shrub habitat near N. Creek/S. Pond prior to removal of blackberry and planting of shrubs, etc.

Figure Name: Figure 8b

Document ID: P119018

Document: Palensky Wildlife Area 2009-10 Annual Report

Page Number: 17

Project: 1991-078-00

Contract: 46923


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2017 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Apr-2017

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2011 0 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
4888 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1991-078-00 BURLINGTON BOTTOM'S MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHASE II History $365,045 4/15/2001 - 2/28/2005
6388 REL 68 SOW Applied Archaeological Research BURLINGTON BOTTOMS WATER CONTROL-CULVERT REPLACMT History $784 10/5/2004 - 10/8/2004
22610 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1991-078-00 BURLINGTON BOTTOMS WILDLIFE MITIGATION PROJECT History $93,408 5/1/2005 - 2/28/2006
26709 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1991-078-00 EXP BURLINGTON BOTTOMS WILDLIFE MITIGATION PROJECT History $103,340 3/14/2006 - 3/31/2007
32587 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1991-078-00 EXP BURLINGTON BOTTOMS WILDLIFE MITIGATION PROJECT History $90,049 4/1/2007 - 3/31/2008
37526 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1991-078-00 EXP BURLINGTON BOTTOMS WLDLF MITIG History $120,961 4/1/2008 - 3/31/2009
42870 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1991-078-00 EXP JOHN PALENSKY WMA EXP History $109,958 4/1/2009 - 3/31/2010
46923 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1991-078-00 EXP BURLINGTON BOTTOMS WLDLF MITIG History $116,219 4/1/2010 - 3/31/2011
BPA-007296 Bonneville Power Administration Burlington Bottoms Land Acquisition Active $0 10/1/1991 - 9/30/1992



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):7
Completed:7
On time:7
Status Reports
Completed:24
On time:10
Avg Days Late:17

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-007296 Burlington Bottoms Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/1991 10/1991 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4888 22610, 26709, 32587, 37526, 42870, 46923, 52875, 56036, 60418, 62170, 66253 1991-078-00 BURLINGTON BOTTOM'S MANAGEMENT PLAN, PHASE II Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 04/2001 04/2001 Closed 41 138 0 0 13 151 91.39% 0
Project Totals 41 138 0 0 13 151 91.39% 0


Review: Wildlife Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1991-078-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 1991-078-00 - John R. Palensky Wildlife Area
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Overall, this proposal was exemplary, and the project is clearly a benefit to wildlife through a wide range of habitat restoration efforts that are technically supported and were apparent from the site visit. Reporting of project results has improved significantly in recent years, and the technical justification and rationale, described for this project, are very thorough, with sound rationale provided for habitat restoration actions.

The project has done a good job in monitoring the response of vegetation to the new water flow regime that approaches the historic water regime. Native vegetation is responding positively (e.g., Wapato, historically important, is now becoming re-established), while non-native invasive plants, such as reed canary grass, are declining with the new water regime.

Comments/recommendations from past ISRP reviews of this project seem to have been thoroughly addressed including improvements in reporting of project survey results and indications that adaptive management is occurring by modifying habitat restoration efforts in response to findings during monitoring surveys.

One important deficiency in the proposal was that the descriptions of methodology were too general and not detailed sufficiently to fully evaluate the scientific and technical merit. The project might benefit in the future by working with a statistician to develop statistically valid survey designs for M&E.

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
The technical justification and rationale described for this project are very thorough with sound rationale provided for habitat restoration actions. The Willamette Subbasin Plan is cited throughout as the program that this project is responding to, but no other references or technical reports are cited in this section. Many other references could be cited for justification or continuation of this project.

The relationships to the regional Willamette Subbasin Plan, the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, the Oregon Conservation Strategy, and the ODFW 2005 Wildlife Strategy Plan are very well described. Relationships to other projects are only generally described and although cooperative partners are named, the cooperators activities are not described in any detail. Also, no project numbers were given for BPA projects.

2. Project History and Results
The recent project history is well documented including data on removal of invasive species and planting of native species. In addition, long-term survey data series from red-legged frogs, salamanders, neo-tropical migratory land birds are valuable, and should be continued and expanded to include associated environmental variables. Time series of other key species and related environmental conditions would also be valuable to record in the future.

In the proposal, no reports documenting project results are cited. However, after searching the BPA site for reports, we found that five have been submitted to BPA including: the HEP evaluation in 1993, the five-year management plan produced in 2001 (which is quite good), two BPA reports in 2005 and 2007 (which contain appendices with monitoring and survey data and results of breeding bird surveys and amphibian breeding surveys which are very useful) and a BPA report from 2008 (which is brief and only reports on tasks accomplished in narrative format). In future proposals, these documents need to be cited so reviewers can more efficiently evaluate the proposal and others can benefit from what is learned.

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
The objectives are somewhat general and need to be more clearly defined and measurable so they can be linked to benefits for wildlife and fish. For example, Objective 4 is to "Restore upland oak-savannah habitat." This is really a goal (from the Willamette Subbasin Plan) and if re-stated as an objective would go something like – "Restore X hectares of upland oak-savannah habitat in the John R. Palensky Wildlife Area to provide additional feeding and nesting habitat for red-tailed hawk and white-breasted nuthatch."

The work elements are well done, but the methods lacked sufficient detail. For example, surveys of wildlife and vegetation are being conducted, but a detailed survey design was not provided in the proposal. The sponsors should work with a statistician to develop statistically valid survey designs. References can be cited relative to details of methods.

4. M&E
The project has done a good job in monitoring the response of vegetation to the new water flow regime that approaches the historic water regime. Native vegetation is responding positively, while invasives are declining. Data on frog and salamander egg masses (1998-2007) are provided with some interpretation (lowest counts understandably in dry years before water control), thus water control can be very important. Similarly, neo-tropical bird counts (1995-2007) show strong evidence of increase in relative abundance and species diversity over time. It seems that adaptive management is occurring in response to observed findings, e.g., also improving nesting and sunning habitat for western pond turtles (which from surveys were determined to be in short supply). The setting of performance criteria and the adaptive management approach are commendable.

One improvement in this section would be to provide more detailed descriptions of monitoring methods. For example, an objective is to "measure seeding survival twice per year and assess causes of seeding failure," however, how this is to be done is not described. For photo-point monitoring methods the sponsors should consider a technique for quantifying changes in vegetation from the photos.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
Overall, this proposal was exemplary, and the project is clearly a benefit to wildlife through a wide range of habitat restoration efforts that are technically supported and were apparent from the site visit. Reporting of project results has improved significantly in recent years, and the technical justification and rationale, described for this project, are very thorough, with sound rationale provided for habitat restoration actions.

The project has done a good job in monitoring the response of vegetation to the new water flow regime that approaches the historic water regime. Native vegetation is responding positively (e.g., Wapato, historically important, is now becoming re-established), while non-native invasive plants, such as reed canary grass, are declining with the new water regime.

Comments/recommendations from past ISRP reviews of this project seem to have been thoroughly addressed including improvements in reporting of project survey results and indications that adaptive management is occurring by modifying habitat restoration efforts in response to findings during monitoring surveys.

One important deficiency in the proposal was that the descriptions of methodology were too general and not detailed sufficiently to fully evaluate the scientific and technical merit. The project might benefit in the future by working with a statistician to develop statistically valid survey designs for M&E.

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
The technical justification and rationale described for this project are very thorough with sound rationale provided for habitat restoration actions. The Willamette Subbasin Plan is cited throughout as the program that this project is responding to, but no other references or technical reports are cited in this section. Many other references could be cited for justification or continuation of this project.

The relationships to the regional Willamette Subbasin Plan, the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, the Oregon Conservation Strategy, and the ODFW 2005 Wildlife Strategy Plan are very well described. Relationships to other projects are only generally described and although cooperative partners are named, the cooperators activities are not described in any detail. Also, no project numbers were given for BPA projects.

2. Project History and Results
The recent project history is well documented including data on removal of invasive species and planting of native species. In addition, long-term survey data series from red-legged frogs, salamanders, neo-tropical migratory land birds are valuable, and should be continued and expanded to include associated environmental variables. Time series of other key species and related environmental conditions would also be valuable to record in the future.

In the proposal no reports documenting project results are cited. However, after searching the BPA site for reports, we found that five have been submitted to BPA including: the HEP evaluation in 1993, the five-year management plan produced in 2001 (which is quite good), two BPA reports in 2005 and 2007 (which contain appendices with monitoring and survey data and results of breeding bird surveys and amphibian breeding surveys which are very useful) and a BPA report from 2008, which is brief and only reports on tasks accomplished in narrative format. In future proposals, these documents need to be cited so reviewers can more efficiently evaluate the proposal and others can benefit from what is learned.

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
The objectives are somewhat general and need to be more clearly defined and measurable so they can be linked to benefits for wildlife and fish. For example, Objective 4 is to "Restore upland oak-savannah habitat." This is really a goal (from the Willamette Subbasin Plan) and if re-stated as an objective would go something like — "Restore X hectares of upland oak-savannah habitat in the John R. Palensky Wildlife Area to provide additional feeding and nesting habitat for red-tailed hawk and white-breasted nuthatch."

The work elements are well done, but the methods lacked sufficient detail. For example, surveys of wildlife and vegetation are being conducted, but a detailed survey design was not provided in the proposal. The sponsors should work with a statistician to develop statistically valid survey designs. References can be cited relative to details of methods.

4. M&E
The project has done a good job in monitoring the response of vegetation to the new water flow regime that approaches the historic water regime. Native vegetation is responding positively, while invasives are declining. Data on frog and salamander egg masses (1998-2007) are provided with some interpretation (lowest counts understandably in dry years before water control), thus water control can be very important. Similarly, neotropical bird counts (1995-2007) show strong evidence of increase in relative abundance and species diversity over time. It seems that adaptive management is occurring in response to observed findings, e.g., also improving nesting and sunning habitat for western pond turtles (which from surveys were determined to be in short supply). The setting of performance criteria and the adaptive management approach are commendable.

One improvement in this section would be to provide more detailed descriptions of monitoring methods. For example, an objective is to "measure seeding survival twice per year and assess causes of seeding failure," however, how this is to be done are not described. For photo-point monitoring methods the sponsors should consider a technique for quantifying changes in vegetation from the photos.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1991-078-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 1991-078-00 - John R. Palensky Wildlife Area
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1991-078-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1991-078-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M, restoration activities on BPA-funded mitigation property; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1991-078-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1991-078-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1991-078-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1991-078-00 - John R. Palensky Wildlife Area
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP was happy to see the documented wildlife findings reported in Table 1 and Table 2. The sponsors did a better job presenting the vertebrate side of the request for more information than they did for the vegetation sampling. The interpretation of the year-to-year egg mass data seems logical and provides an indication that personnel associated with the project are utilizing the data being collected to understand what is happening in Burlington Bottoms. The next step may be to determine if there is a realistic (cost-effective) way to maintain adequate water in all of the ponds in years with low water. An attempt was made to describe the egg mass distribution in relation of exotic species (i.e., exotic species dominate the situation now). The bird data seemed very useful and informative with the implication that numbers and species are increasing as habitat improves, but quantification of the habitat changes could use some improvement. Measurements of vegetation from plots before and after their work, rather than ocular estimates may be more useful. In future years, the project should continue to use monitoring data to evaluate costs and benefits of the various active and passive management techniques that are used, providing quantitative results to address this important issue.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1991-078-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1991-078-00 - John R. Palensky Wildlife Area
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Sue Beilke Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Sandra Sovay Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Michael Arredondo (Inactive) Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
John Baugher (Inactive) Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Rosemary Mazaika Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Kurt Ingeman (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Hannah Dondy-Kaplan (Inactive) Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration