FY07-09 proposal 199604601

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla

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: Ongoing
Comments: Project is an ongoing habitat based effort to address factors limiting anadromous fish recovery. The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan identifies significant need in the subbasin for habitat protection and enhancement/restoration activities needed to recover focal species.

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is a potentially important project that relates closely to the Walla Walla subbasin plan. The proposal, however, is not well-organized or well-written. The sponsors did not provide a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the project to date in terms of how well the overall project has met it objectives. The project has been funded for 10 years and abundant data on effectiveness should be available. However, few significant results were presented, especially those related to fish. Available data should have been analyzed and presented in a concise, convincing way in this proposal. As it stands, there is very little evidence upon which to evaluate project effectiveness. Moreover, the sponsors did not adequately describe the monitoring program other than to discuss the kinds of data that were being collected. There is no clarity to the objectives of the proposal. Objectives for ongoing and new work are entangled, and there is a strong tendency to confuse actions with objectives. Adequacy of methods is difficult to assess because project objectives are not adequately presented. There is an over-reliance on tables to convey information. The sponsors should have followed the guide for proposal writing more closely. Technical and scientific background: The background is well written and explains the logic for the project continuing. The proposal seeks to restore priority reaches in the Walla Walla and Touchet Rivers with high estimated restoration potential for spring Chinook and summer steelhead. The need is based on restoration priorities developed in the Walla Walla Subbasin plan. The sponsors need to address a few issues related to the high priority designation of the reaches and their restoration potential. Considering the large number of factors limiting production in these two reaches, implying that recovering habitat would be very difficult, why were they designated as high priority for restoration? Are there areas of higher priority that have not received attention? It would be helpful if the sponsors provided their rationale for selecting restoration sites. Are they simply going down a list by order, or is their some other rationale? Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: One of the strongest elements of the proposal is its direct linkage to the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan. The proposed work addresses two of the reaches identified as high priority in the Plan and uses the limiting factors analysis provided by EDT to determine appropriate restoration activities. The proposed work also is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2000 Biological Opinion, and several other state plans. The proposal lists a number of actions that will be taken to address limiting factors. How much of this work will be on private land? For work on private land, the sponsors need to indicate whether they have received landowners’ permission to carry out the actions, what actions can take place without permission, and what the fall back position will be if permission is not granted. Relationships to other projects: The project includes collaborative work with several other projects and groups. The sponsors would closely collaborate with Fish and Wildlife Program-funded fish habitat programs managed by CTUIR in other basins. They also would work with a Priority Projects Group composed of tribal, state, and private entities. Project history: A central shortcoming of the proposal is a lack of clarity about what the actual project monitoring program is and how it relates to larger M&E efforts. The sponsors should clearly and concisely describe the monitoring program without solely referring to other documents and efforts. If the project M&E is part of the cooperative CTUIR Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation, WDFW, ODFW effort, then describe in sufficient detail what that monitoring program consists of. How will implementation and effectiveness monitoring be done? In the proposal, for example, the sponsors state that implementation monitoring will be conducted is with a BACI design. This statement provides little insight into the actual design of the program. The sponsors apparently have been collecting monitoring data on habitat and fish since the inception of the project and they claim that the data show “measurable” benefits to fish habitat. The sponsors need to back up their statement by presenting a comprehensive synthesis (not just summary tables of data) of quantitative results and conclusions about project effectiveness to date. We recognize that, for some projects, measurable benefits from particular actions will be seen only after long time periods. This does not mean that the products of these actions should not be monitored. A careful and thorough analysis of project effectiveness is necessary to evaluate the progress of the project to date. Objectives: The objectives section is a mix of what apparently are objectives related to continuation of established projects and actions related to new projects. The objectives are neither well defined nor measurable and consist largely of actions that are more appropriate for Methods. Objectives are scattered throughout the proposal (e.g., in the Objectives and Methods Section, and in Table 13) and need to be consolidated and focused. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are provided, but it is difficult to know how appropriate they are because quantifiable objectives are not given. The purpose of the section entitled “Project Objectives and Methods/Work Elements” is unclear, it is not well integrated with the rest of the proposal, and it has the appearance of an add-on. Monitoring and evaluation: The proposal side-steps the issue of monitoring both in terms of clearly describing the general monitoring program (not just the data that will be collected) and specifically indicating how each project will be monitored. Facilities, equipment, and personnel seem adequate. Information transfer is primarily by reports. Conveyance of results to stakeholders would seem to be particularly appropriate for this project but it is not mentioned. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Benefits are anticipated for all co-occurring focal species by removing or reducing limiting factors. Although benefits are likely, they are difficult to assess because of the lack of clear project objectives and a description of the monitoring protocol. Non-focal species were not addressed. If habitat rehabilitation is successful, non-focal species could benefit.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The sponsors provided a reasonable response to some of the ISRP’s comments but not to others. The sponsors adequately addressed ISRP comments related to objectives, reach prioritization, landowner permission to conduct projects, and information transfer. The sponsors provided little more information on project effectiveness than they did in the original proposal, basically citing monitoring results from a single project (which was insightful and indicated progress toward success) rather than providing a comprehensive quantitative synthesis across all projects. Because of the lack of presentation of comprehensive, quantitative results it is difficult to assess the success of this project. The ISRP remains concerned about the lack of fish monitoring. The sponsors apparently do not feel that measuring parameters related to fish production at the project level is necessary. Their rationale is that changes in salmonid abundance for an individual project could result from any number of factors not related to habitat restoration activities and argue that effectiveness is best determined at the subbasin or tributary scale. This view is somewhat perplexing because the sponsors mentioned in the section in the original proposal entitled “Parameters currently being monitored and analyzed over time” that monitoring fish populations was a standard part of their project assessments. One way of assessing impacts of extraneous factors at the site level is to employ unrestored reference reaches to serve as a comparison with restored reaches. The sponsors mentioned the use of reference reaches several times in the proposal, but they did not describe the reference reaches or even clearly indicate if they would actually make use of them. It would be relatively simple to add some monitoring of fish response, and to take a more active part in the development of habitat effectiveness evaluation in the basin. The sponsors could develop a cost-effective program with help from a statistical team in creating a design. Qualification: More effort should be placed on monitoring fish response to habitat changes. Monitoring all projects may not be necessary, but the sponsors do need some plan at an appropriate watershed/subbasin scale to determine the effectiveness of the projects. To assess effectiveness, the sponsors should try to identify reference reaches to compare with restored reaches.