FY07-09 proposal 198402500

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: Operations and Maintenance is ongoing and represents approximately 50% of costs

Termination date: Ongoing
Comments: This project has been well recieved by landowners, tribes, agencies and other cooperators. As outlined in the Subbasin Plan there is plenty of work to do for some time

Final deliverables: N/A

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The proposal seeks to continue restoration activities in the Grande Ronde basin where the need for these activities is well documented. The project has a long history of success at implementing habitat actions. A particularly positive aspect of the work is the cooperative relationships that have been established with landowners. The central drawback is the lack of a clear monitoring protocol for projects. Numerous and diverse projects have been implemented since the project’s inception. The actual benefits to focal species, however, can only be inferred because the sponsors provided no direct evidence of how fish utilization had increased in project areas or how it will be assessed in the future. Past projects may have resulted in positive habitat changes, and these changes are likely to benefit fish. A response is requested to address the effectiveness monitoring. There does not seem to be a standard protocol, and the sponsors presented no solid, quantitative evidence that the projects actually benefit fish. The effectiveness monitoring conducted by the sponsors, or other projects should be identified. The sponsors have adequately documented implementation. Additionally, evidence of management implications is sparse. The earlier ISRP review emphasized the need to assess and evaluate the stockpile of data collected by the project, and this advice does not seem to have been translated into action. It would be appropriate for the sponsors to indicate how their nearly 20 years of experience has transformed their approach to habitat restoration. Are there activities that they did years ago that have been abandoned because they do not believe it is beneficial, or other activities that they have expanded because their impression is that these treatments are useful? More rigorous, quantitative documentation of improvements in riparian function, channel characteristics and flow, and fish use would be beneficial to clearly demonstrate the benefits to fish of the projects. This project is integral to the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program, where the Council has identified the need to coordinate an effort within a subbasin. The Council should use all avenues available to try to get adequate data collected on these projects and an evaluation of the efficacy of the efforts. A response should describe provisions for biological monitoring and evaluation (measurable, objective, and hypothesis driven). M&E could be accomplished by other projects, but needs to be detailed and address which project and entities will be doing it ... hypotheses, etc. for each site or suite of habitat actions. The sponsor is undoubtedly accomplishing habitat modification. Effects on the target species need to be measured in order to justify this and similar projects. Work element 3.1.1 WE 175 - Collect/Generate/Validate field and lab data: 30 miles of spawning ground surveys are identified in this work element. Is this new? If not, why is none of this data included in the project history. If it is not new, some methods should be provided and a framework for the analysis and interpretation of the data. The implementation monitoring using wells, temperature recorders, and photopoints is fine. Some analysis of this data is needed. It may be in the annual reports, but that is not clear from the proposal.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This project has treated 70 miles of stream in the past 20 years. The sponsors expressed frustration with what they perceive as a mixed message on the scale of monitoring and evaluation required of this type of habitat improvement project. They note that instructions from BPA and Council propose that this type of project should conduct only implementation and compliance monitoring and it should not exceed 5% of the budget. They cite dialog between Jim Geiselman from BPA and Lyman McDonald (formerly of the ISAB and ISRP) at a habitat-monitoring workshop several years ago as an example of the different expectations of the ISRP and BPA. The ISRP acknowledges and appreciates the sponsor's frustration regarding the extent of monitoring and evaluation expected of them. To clarify for sponsors, the ISRP examines the sufficiency of data collections and evaluation to measure progress toward achieving biological objectives identified in a proposal, and benefits for focal species. Concern # 1 raised by the sponsors: "This project should implement effectiveness monitoring" is a misinterpretation of the ISRP's preliminary review. In that review the ISRP states: "The effectiveness monitoring conducted by the sponsors, or other projects should be identified." Later in the review the ISRP states: "M&E could be accomplished by other projects, but needs to be detailed and address which project and entities will be doing it." The ISRP does not suggest that individual projects need to conduct their own M&E. Other projects can accomplish that task. However, sponsors should be able to describe the M&E and summarize the status of the data collections, evaluations, and management implications. The sponsors reply to the request for more detail on monitoring methods with a list of metrics and methods that they, or others, use for monitoring and evaluation. This is a reasonable beginning, but not a sufficient presentation of the monitoring for this project. For example, under the topic "Habitat Monitoring Transects," the sponsors state that these transects collect data in selected study areas. They go on to state that there are 140 habitat monitoring transects on four streams, and that data have been collected on three to five year intervals. This appears to be an impressive and important data set. For the ISRP to complete its evaluation of this project, it needs to know what streams were monitored, what kinds of treatment each stream received, what was the desired biological outcome (physical habitat or biological condition), how many years of data have been collected, how the analysis is being conducted, and what is the interpretation from the data set. The sponsors provide a short but acceptable reply to the ISRP query about the management implications of the past 20 years of habitat restoration treatments. Finally, the sponsors explain the 30 miles of spawning ground surveys conducted by project staff. They state that they did not include this data in the project history because they do not feel they can make any direct correlation between spawning adult fish and habitat modifications. The ISRP concludes that this is important data and an important conclusion. All of that information should be in the project history section. Fundable (qualified), with the qualification that the ISRP should review a special report, or annual report, that presents an analysis of the data from this project together with a summary of the conclusions about benefits to the focal species and management recommendations for further habitat treatments. This should be reviewed by the ISRP in FY07.