FY07-09 proposal 199608300

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde

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: Ongoing project into foreseeable future. Term conservation easements extend into 2020.

Termination date: Ongoing
Comments: Project is an ongoing habitat-based effort to address factors limiting anadromous fish recovery. Subbasin plan identifies significant need in the Subbasin for habitat protection and enhancement/restoration.

Final deliverables: Increased production and productivity potential of salmon and steelhead habitat in priority geographic areas identified in the Subbasin Plan.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is a good proposal, but it needs to display biological results that demonstrate effectiveness of past restoration activities. The sponsors need to provide better documentation of the success of individual projects to date and to better explain the monitoring program so that it is clear that monitoring will be adequate to assess progress toward the project’s goal. Technical and scientific background: The problem is well documented by the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan and other reports. The sponsors propose to continue habitat restoration action to recover declining stocks. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The project is closely linked to the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan and generally addresses objectives in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposed projects are sited within the three highest priority watersheds identified by the Grande Ronde Plan. Relationships to other projects: The project has an excellent history of collaboration in the Grande Ronde basin. The sponsors are members of the Board of Directors of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. They collaborate with numerous state, federal, and private entities and involve some of these entities in project design and implementation. Project history: The project has been in existence for 14 years or so. The results in terms of target fish population responses to habitat change should be available, but these results do not appear in this proposal. While a broad overview of project history is both helpful and necessary, a project-by-project summary also is necessary to determine how well the individual projects are progressing relative to their objectives. We suggest one way of summarizing this information. For each project, the sponsors could indicate the priority watershed in which it is located, project objectives, limiting factors, the priority restoration actions that have been undertaken, and metrics for evaluation. They could provide an indication of the changes that have occurred at the project site following enhancement actions much as they have done in a general way in the proposal, and an overall, objective assessment of the progress of the project relative to the information provided above. Finally, they could provide an objective evaluation of the status of data analysis for each project. Objectives: The general objectives of the project and Work Elements are well defined. The projects have been identified. Specific objectives for individual projects have not yet been formulated because the projects are still in a developmental stage. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The sponsors describe the process they use in developing and implementing a project. The process is logical; it is tied to the subbasin plan and can involve landowners in development of project goals. The enhancement actions the sponsors employ are well established, and they are experienced in their use. Monitoring and evaluation: The sponsor’s provide a broad overview of the monitoring program. The monitoring plans in terms of questions to be addressed are presented. These plans imply that habitat and fish population variables will be measured, but often in vague terms. The M&E design and methods were not described. The project has been in existence for 14 years or so. M&E should have been fully developed by this time, and the results should have been presented in the Project History section of the proposal. The sponsors need to clarify what project-specific monitoring will occur and who will do it. Will both implementation and effectiveness monitoring take place for each project? What entity will be responsible for each? Will habitat surveys be conducted on a regular basis at each project? Will fish surveys be regularly conducted at each project? Will the fish performance measures appropriate for the project be selected from those in Table 9? The response should explain the BACI design. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities are adequate. No information on project personnel was provided. Information transfer: The proposal provides for means of information dissemination including reports and outreach programs. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The projects should benefit focal species by improving their habitat. The level of benefit that can be expected is unknown at this point because the projects are currently being developed The project should provide improvements in stream, wetland, and riparian habitat and should have multiple benefits for many non-focal species.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The sponsors have provided an excellent response to ISRP comments. CTUIR is carrying out a number of important projects. In spite of budget limitations, they are conducting reasonably comprehensive project-level monitoring in cooperation with various agencies and Oregon State University. A summary of results from three major projects were reported, although quantitative information was not provided. The projects appear to be progressing as planned. An excellent overview of specific project M&E needs was provided.