The proponents of the Willamette Bi-Op Habitat Restoration Project (Project) provided a well-written and thoughtful proposal that addresses many concerns presented in previous ISRP reviews. The ISRP believes the proposal meets scientific criteria but can be improved. The following suggestions should be considered as the proponents go forward. The main ongoing concern is that this Umbrella Project does not have an effective means to assess the progress of the project. The draft Willamette Focused Investment Partnership (WFIP) monitoring and effectiveness plan should allay this concern.

Another ISRP concern has been the lack of quantitative, time-bound objectives. Proposals submitted to this Umbrella project are required to include SMART objectives, and these proposals are reviewed by an independent TRT composed of subject-area experts. Given this extensive oversight, the ISRP believes this project is going in the right direction. As an Umbrella Project (i.e., a funding program), the proponents should consider adding SMART objectives to this project. For example, objectives can contain a rough timeline for when projects will be solicited and reviewed, and the target number of projects to be funded.

The proponents discussed adaptive management focused on programmatic and financial considerations via learning and adapting. This narrow implementation of adaptive management in the project should be made clear, as most people think of adaptive management as including improvements to habitat restoration actions based on their in-situ performance (i.e., ecological responses).

In the past, the ISRP has been told that no BPA funds (or limited funds) could be used for monitoring and evaluation for this project. Nonetheless, the proponents should consider looking at general trends. For example, are temperatures going down or at least not rising as quickly where habitat restoration activities have occurred?

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

As with previous Willamette Bi-Op Habitat Restoration Project products reviewed by the ISRP, the proponents have produced a well-written proposal. This Umbrella Project requires SMART objectives of proposals submitted for funding. However, as noted in other reviews, this Umbrella Project does not have clearly stated quantifiable, time-bound objectives with which to assess success of the Umbrella Project.

The goal of the Project is to increase and enhance habitats of anadromous Upper Willamette (UWR) spring Chinook salmon and UWR steelhead downstream of federal dams. They also consider benefits to bull trout, Oregon chub and Pacific lamprey.

This Umbrella Project has overseen the distribution of funds from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), Meyer Memorial Trust (MMT), as well as from BPA. The name of the group making funding decisions has changed through time depending on the source of funds: Willamette Special Investment Partnership (SIP) – 2008-2015 with funds from BPA, OWEB, MMT; Willamette Anchor Habitat Investments (AHI) – 2016-2020 with funds from BPA, OWEB, MMT; and OWEB Focused Investment Partnership (FIP)—2016-2021. A partnership of numerous restoration practitioners operating in the Willamette basin (Proposal, Appendix D), and whose work is supported by the SIP/AHI funding programs is currently known as the Willamette Anchor Habitat Working Group (WAHWG).

The goal of the AHI is to fund as many high-impact habitat projects as possible in the Willamette River basin. The AHI is called a Funding Partnership and the proposal states “the Funding Partnership does not determine what habitat projects are submitted, or ‘come in the door.’ Therefore, there is a significant element of uncertainty that the funding program must contend with in developing SMART goals.” (Proposal page 10). Table 5 on page 20 and Appendix G of the proposal provide examples of SMART objectives that were part of 2016-2020 funded projects that can be adapted to funding for the 2023-2027 period. The Funding Partnership requires that projects address these three objectives: improved connectivity between the river and its floodplain; increased channel complexity and length; and expanded geographic extent and improved health of floodplain forests. The proposal states: “Although the MMT and OWEB investments will conclude in 2021 and the Funding Partnership will dissolve at that time, we expect that the expanded geographic eligibility described here will persist in future years of the Project.” (Proposal page 22).

The ISRP suggests that the proponents examine their process for evaluating and awarding projects. The ISRP is not suggesting a major overhaul of the process but rather some modifications (tweaks, additional emphasis, incentives) within the same overall process. While the ISRP understands that the Project cannot completely control which specific projects are proposed, there are ways to ensure that proposed projects address key topics and whose results will be complementary and leverage other ongoing and newly funded projects. The ISRP was concerned that the Project was too quickly backing off from focusing proposals on critical topics and areas. The Project cannot be overly prescriptive, but the ISRP considers that the Project can do more to keep proposed projects focused and cross-referenced to each other to maximize the benefits and reduce costs.

Q2: Methods

The project review and selection process of this Umbrella Project is based on sound science principles provided by an independent technical review team (TRT; see Proposal Appendices K & M). However, as has been noted in previous ISRP reviews, the proponents do not have a quantitative scoring system to rank project proposals. Funding decisions are made by the WAHWG through a multi-step process including review of pre-proposals, site review, and final proposal review. The AHI funding process does not use a quantitative decision process but provides projects selected for funding to BPA’s Habitat Technical Team (HTT, Appendix L), which determines if the projects meet their selection criteria. Other funding agencies (i.e., OWEB, MMT) have specific interests as outlined in Appendix H of the proposal.

The data collected as part of the projects funded in 2019-2021 (Proposal pages 25-27) appear to be based on sound science principles, but a description of how the data will be analyzed should be included (see next section re: Monitoring and Evaluation).

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents have developed an adaptive management program and have regular meetings and communication between scientists and the restoration practitioners. The proponents provided an extensive section of lessons learned and how these were incorporated through adaptive management, which is commendable. The examples provided, however, focused on programmatic and financial considerations via learning and adapting. This narrow implementation of adaptive management in the project should be made clear, as most people think of learning for adaptive management as also including improvements to habitat restoration actions based on their in-situ performance (i.e., ecological responses). The ISRP recognizes the value of adapting programmatic and financial aspects but would also suggest the project look for low-effort (time and labor) ways to use existing information (i.e., not monitoring by the project) to also learn and adapt for performance and effectiveness. The ISRP is concerned that prevention of M&E specific to the project is viewed as meaning that learning about effectiveness is therefore impossible.

The Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the Willamette Focused Investment Partnership (Appendix N of the proposal) has limited funding and so “focuses on evaluating effectiveness of broad categories of restoration actions (for example: enhancement of gravel pits, floodplain forest establishment) rather than detailed evaluation of individual habitat projects.” The goals of the WFIP program are to relate the restoration actions to patterns of fish communities (Appendix N, pages 2-3). The effectiveness monitoring document is in draft form but will be in place for the 2021 project activities.

The ISRP is concerned that the proponents describe the types of data that are collected as monitoring indicators—such as hydrogeomorhic, floodplain forest and aquatic plant, and water quality responses—but also state: “Currently there is no funding for statistical analyses or evaluation of monitoring results. We hope to carryout analyses and evaluation of monitoring findings in a future phase (Phase 5) of the monitoring program, but have no plans for funding for this. To date, there is simply funding for limited data collection and two ‘state of the science’ syntheses on specific restoration activities.” (Proposal page 26). The proponents should consider providing some general approaches for trend analysis given the data collected, which would not require substantial effort or funding. Most databases make it easy to look at some general trends. For example, are temperatures going down or at least not rising as quickly where habitat restoration activities have occurred?

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proponents assume that the restoration actions of the projects funded under this Umbrella Project will have benefits for the fish species of concern. While each funded project stands alone in terms of whether it generated useful information, it is not clear if the data collected thus far (since 2008) as part of the funded projects under this Umbrella project include direct assessment of changes in native fish populations. However, the draft WFIP monitoring and evaluation plan will add effects on fish communities to the evaluation (Appendix N). Please see section above on Monitoring and Evaluation.

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.