1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives
The goal of this project is to restore riparian and instream habitats to benefit recovery of ESA listed Grand Ronde River Chinook, summer steelhead, and bull trout. Habitat degradation has been a major in-basin factor contributing to the decline of these species. The project is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program, NOAA-Fisheries Draft Recovery Plan, Oregon’s Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, and the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan.
The project has a long and productive relationship with local partners and, thereby, is significant to regional programs. The sponsors select project locations opportunistically but also strategically, focusing their work in specific priority areas of the subbasin. The proposed activities appear to be well-coordinated with restoration actions being proposed by others in the subbasin. The sponsors have the technical background and experience necessary to successfully complete the individual projects.
The Objectives, in a general sense, are appropriate and adequately address the major factors thought to be limiting salmon populations in the Grande Ronde. In several objectives, the sponsors propose to restore habitat as close as possible to “historic conditions.” As the objectives are structured, historic conditions seem to serve as a benchmark or goal against which progress will be evaluated. In a conceptual sense this seems reasonable, but the sponsors provide no information about what historic conditions were, how they were determined, and how they were quantified. Is it possible to develop a quantitative goal in terms of habitat structure and process rather than something like the number of miles of fences to be constructed so that tangible progress toward the goal can be evaluated? Perhaps the sponsors should consider using the Minam and Wenaha Rivers, where habitat is relatively intact, as reference streams to gage how their recovery efforts are progressing.
2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)
This project has been ongoing since 1984, and its accomplishments in implementing restoration actions are substantial. The sponsors provided a link to PISCES where a report synthesizing results related to project planning, implementation, activities undertaken, and RM&E from 1984-2007 was given. Results from 2008 were presented in the proposal. While the sponsors appear to have put more effort in monitoring relative to other habitat enhancement projects in the region, effectiveness monitoring for fish responses remains sporadic and, while some results indicate positive responses of habitat to enhancement actions, the results to date of the physical enhancement actions appear to be equivocal or neutral in many cases. The proposal could be improved if the sponsors provided recovery goals for fish and some indication of how, at this point, the habitat work may be contributing to recovery.
It would have been helpful if the sponsors identified major spawning and rearing areas and the locations and types of projects in these areas. The sponsors could have done a better job of discussing how on-the-ground habitat enhancement efforts tie in with and are validated and aided by the excellent research record out of this office.
While learning is occurring as experience accumulates on the best habitat enhancement approaches, adaptive management is not being implemented as intended when the concept was originally proposed. Each restoration action or a collection of actions needs hypotheses or quantitative goals, a timetable for a response, and comparisons to reference sites rather than only before-after comparisons. Fish populations are dynamic, and there are many influences on their abundance, hence the need for reference sites. Quantitative hypotheses/goals and timetables allow evaluation of the influence of habitat enhancement actions on fish. The discussion of adaptive management was interesting and useful but was not the most efficient form of learning.
Evaluation of Results
This project has implemented an impressive number of projects over its 29 year history. The sponsors completed a report synthesizing information on its habitat enhancement projects including results from its monitoring program from the inception of the project to 2007. It is clear from this report and the current proposal that the project has continued to improve its prioritization process and enhancement techniques in keeping with advances in the field of habitat restoration.
The sponsors have developed a viable RM&E program with updated sampling protocols based on CHaMP. The ISRP encourages the sponsors to continue and to expand the RM&E program to better evaluate fish responses to habitat enhancement. The Minam and Wenaha rivers in the Grande Ronde subbasin can possibly serve as useful reference streams to help evaluate whether fish are responding positively to habitat restoration actions.
3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions
Project relationships are a strong point of this project as has been noted in previous ISRP reviews. The sponsors have worked collaboratively with several state and tribal entities.
The sponsors discussed possible impacts of climate change and feel that their work will be able to detect changes induced by climate change, and the enhancement actions they are undertaking may help ameliorate these changes. Again, using the Minam and Wenaha as reference streams may help detect any climate induced changes in habitat and fish populations.
Climate change is not an emerging limiting factor; it is an existing factor. Fortunately, the sponsors are proposing to address it through better riparian protection and rehabilitation as well as other actions. Climate change began in the region about 1950 and this “phase” of loss of late summer snowpack is thought to have its full effect around 2030. There are new modeling platforms available that the sponsors may wish to examine that give insights into future stream conditions. These modeling platforms may help guide restoration actions.
Other emerging limiting factors, or just limiting factors, that received little attention in the proposal include non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals. How will the proposed restoration actions be affected by these factors? Or, how can the restoration actions help mitigate some of their ecological effects?
The ISRP was pleased to see an emphasis on winter icing conditions. Most projects ignore this very important ecological driver of stream communities.
4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods
The deliverables for each objective are for the most part quantitative and thereby allow for an eventual evaluation of effectiveness. All the deliverables, work elements, metrics and methods seem appropriate, with a couple specific exceptions:
DELV-16: It would be very useful to have data on condition factors of juvenile salmonids by site and over time. The ISRP suggests that this be added to the parameters measured.
DELV-18: How is local capacity building accomplished? For example, are there internships available for students? Further, can capacity building and local responsibility be improved by instituting a citizen science program?
The monitoring program appears to be adequate within the basin, but perhaps not tied closely enough with this project. The sponsors appear to have kept up to date on data analysis. Metrics and methods of the RM&E program are based on Oregon’s Aquatic Inventory protocol as well as EMAP and CHaMP, adapted for the Grande Ronde basin. These protocols are well established and should provide an adequate basis for Grand Ronde habitat monitoring.
Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org
The protocols and methods were adequately described in MonitoringMethods.org.
===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================
This is a strong proposal. The project has an impressive record of accomplishments and is an effective habitat improvement program. The sponsors are to be especially commended for their efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the projects. They could be providing leadership for some of the other local projects that are struggling to establish comprehensive, integrative, and successful programs. The ISRP encourages the sponsors to publish their results in refereed journals.
The following qualifications should be addressed during contracting or in future proposals and reports:
Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:08:09 PM.
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in