This proposal, largely conceptual in format, has two distinct aspects: habitat implementation and project prioritization and selection. It is intended to develop an implementation strategy, including stakeholder and advisory committees, development of scientific scoring of biological integrity, and a feasibility scoring system to guide the selection and completion of suites of habitat restoration projects for 2014-2018. Overall, this project has a successful record of accomplishments, especially related to improving fish passage. The discussion of plans for restoration and desired elements of a restoration strategy including protect and maintain highest quality habitat areas, manage land to ensure ecological integrity and function and restore highest priority watersheds and habitat are presented but are not thoroughly incorporated into the proposal.

The project, as written, intends to be an umbrella project for fish habitat restoration in the John Day basin. However, it was not clearly indicated how much support the sponsor’s strategy for the basin will have from other entities doing work in the subbasin and operating independently for decades. What is the overall plan for the basin? How does this proposed project mesh with other basin activities? What is the exact nature of the cooperation and how are the sponsors going to include all the managers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the soil and water conservation districts, and other stakeholders in their strategic planning? The sponsors should bring the TAC in early in the process to assist with a strategic plan for implementation and monitoring.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project is consistent with multiple tribal, federal, and state agency regional and subbasin recovery plans. The problem is clearly defined. The sponsors concisely discuss the major factors limiting fish production in the John Day subbasin and the kinds of restoration actions that should be taken to remediate them. Based on the discussion in Project History, it appears that significant progress has been made in the John Day subbasin in improving fish passage, habitat, and land management.

The sponsors provided a detailed description of a formalized Implementation Strategy that they are in the process of developing to prioritize restoration activities. This Strategy apparently was developed in response to a recommendation in the ISRP’s 2006 project review. Development of the Strategy is the first objective in the proposal. The remainder of the objectives pertain primarily to protection of high quality habitats and restoration of degraded habitats prioritized by the Implementation Strategy and thus these objectives are contingent on successful completion of Objective 1, "Develop Strategy Document,” which the sponsors say will be completed in 2014.

The ISRP commends the sponsors for developing what appears to be a rational, systematic procedure for project site selection and action. This approach could serve as a model for other restoration planning efforts in the subbasin, however many entities are working in the John Day Basin. Will they participate in the Strategy and follow the priority listing of projects? If so, how will they participate? There is a need to avoid duplication of effort in planning. The proposal states that "The Tribes would like to coordinate with basin partners and technical experts to leverage existing scientific data, physical information, and stakeholder input for the development of a strategic, prioritized restoration implementation strategy”. With the extensive planning efforts that have already been undertaken within the subbasin, including the Subbasin Plan and the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Conservation and Recovery Plan, it seems that much of what the Strategy proposes to do, that is determine fish use of stream reaches by life stage, limiting factor identification, site prioritization, appropriate remedial actions should have been completed some years ago. Why are partnerships still being built after 5 years? It seems they should have been already in place. It is not clear how well this proposed work is coordinated with ODFW, Soil and Water Conservation districts, and other basin entities. Why is prioritization only occurring now? It seems as though it should have been done prior to ongoing enhancement actions. The implementation phase of this work seems to be getting ahead of the coordination. It would have been helpful if the sponsors were more explicit about why their strategic approach is needed in lieu of other subbasin planning efforts. What will it provide that other planning documents have not?

As criteria for site selection, the sponsors may want to consider the locations of other restoration sites in the basin and proximity to high quality habitats.

The project objectives are actually goal statements and lack quantitative description of desired products or specified dates for completion. These need to be provided.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Restoration actions undertaken so far by this project are primarily passage improvement, juniper removal, riparian planting, LWD placement, and installation of cattle exclosures. Results consist primarily of descriptions of projects that have been undertaken to date. Few quantitative results were presented. The proposal could have been improved if the sponsors had discussed in more detail what sort of M&E program is currently in place, what kind of monitoring data has been collected, and whether the data have been analyzed and utilized.

The sponsors discuss extensively the Middle Fork John Day Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project in which they are a cooperator. It is unclear, however, how this project is related to the work set forth in the current proposal. The sponsors should have clearly identified how they will make use of the results from the IMW project in their proposed work and what role it has in development of the sponsor’s Implementation Strategy.

The sponsors consider development and implementation of the Strategy to represent adaptive management.

Restoration in the John Day has been ongoing for 30 years. Past ISRP comments (2006) suggested the need for clear criteria to prioritize projects, more M&E, development of an accomplishments report and review, and additional detail to be included in work elements. It appears that no retrospective analysis of past actions has been done. There is limited discussion of lessons learned and their application into program design or operation. A positive aspect is that there has been some upslope work that includes juniper treatment to improve streamflow. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the extent of this treatment needed to actually result in measurable increases in flow.

There are no clearly established criteria for prioritizing projects and there is little detail provided regarding key designs or considerations for work elements. There has been additional staffing for effectiveness monitoring.

To understand project significance at the landscape scale, the sponsors need to conceptualize at a wider scale than the reach scale. This is because many important processes, potentially affecting habitat quantity and quality, operate at broader than the reach scale. A geomorphologist should be included on the TAC for the project.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

There are a large number of projects pertaining to both fish and habitat on-going and planned in the John Day basin as well as IMW and other ISEMP projects. Many of these projects appear to be taking place in similar parts of the subbasin and some have different objectives than others. One of the major questions is how all of these projects coordinate their restoration and monitoring activities so as to be complementary and not duplicative, and maximize the probability that the projects, taken together, have a positive cumulative impact on fish and habitat. For example, is project site selection done cooperatively with all major entities involved? It seems that the proposed Implementation Strategy could be used cooperatively by all entities working in the subbasin. Are the monitoring efforts consistent among projects in terms of the monitoring design, data collected, and analyses conducted? The ISRP recognizes that answering these questions should not solely be the responsibility of the sponsors of this project but rather it should be a joint response by all cooperators in the subbasin.

The sponsors discuss climate change as a potential problem and maintain that their habitat restoration work will help to mitigate climate change impacts especially to the extent that the restoration actions reduce water temperatures. No potential effects on lamprey are discussed. Additionally, there is no discussion of forest health and potential effects of major fires or disease outbreaks on aquatic habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The first five Deliverables pertain to development of the Implementation Strategy which will prioritize project locations and is scheduled to be completed in 2014. Many of the remaining Deliverables are nearly restatements of the Objectives. Specific project locations are not identified in the Deliverables. They will be selected based on the outcome of the Implementation Strategy process. This approach is reasonable and should not delay commencement of the projects beyond 2014.

The work in public education and outreach is a positive element and it appears that a wide range of activities have been developed and implemented in the past few years.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

There is limited discussion on specific monitoring changes since the last ISRP review. There is no mention of future needs to become involved in ISEMP and AEM.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

In contracting and future reviews, the project sponsor should describe how project prioritization will mesh with activities of ODFW and other management entities. The sponsor's work and that of other agencies appear parallel in approach, but coordination could be improved. A past ISRP request for prioritization seems to not have been completed or coordinated with other basin entities. The sponsors need to ensure that their project works cooperatively with partners to develop priority restoration areas with no duplication of effort. The ISRP should review the criteria that are used to review projects, the composition of the TAC, and the overall M&E plan as part of a review of the Implementation Strategy scheduled for completion in 2014.

This proposal, largely conceptual in format, has two distinct aspects: habitat implementation and project prioritization and selection. It is intended to develop an implementation strategy, including stakeholder and advisory committees, development of scientific scoring of biological integrity, and a feasibility scoring system to guide the selection and completion of suites of habitat restoration projects for 2014-2018. Overall, this project has a successful record of accomplishments, especially related to improving fish passage. The discussion of plans for restoration and desired elements of a restoration strategy including protect and maintain highest quality habitat areas, manage land to ensure ecological integrity and function and restore highest priority watersheds and habitat are presented but are not thoroughly incorporated into the proposal.

The project, as written, intends to be an umbrella project for fish habitat restoration in the John Day basin. However, it was not clearly indicated how much support the sponsor’s strategy for the basin will have from other entities doing work in the subbasin and operating independently for decades. What is the overall plan for the basin? How does this proposed project mesh with other basin activities? What is the exact nature of the cooperation and how are the sponsors going to include all the managers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the soil and water conservation districts, and other stakeholders in their strategic planning? The sponsors should bring the TAC in early in the process to assist with a strategic plan for implementation and monitoring.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project is consistent with multiple tribal, federal, and state agency regional and subbasin recovery plans. The problem is clearly defined. The sponsors concisely discuss the major factors limiting fish production in the John Day subbasin and the kinds of restoration actions that should be taken to remediate them. Based on the discussion in Project History, it appears that significant progress has been made in the John Day subbasin in improving fish passage, habitat, and land management.

The sponsors provided a detailed description of a formalized Implementation Strategy that they are in the process of developing to prioritize restoration activities. This Strategy apparently was developed in response to a recommendation in the ISRP’s 2006 project review. Development of the Strategy is the first objective in the proposal. The remainder of the objectives pertain primarily to protection of high quality habitats and restoration of degraded habitats prioritized by the Implementation Strategy and thus these objectives are contingent on successful completion of Objective 1, "Develop Strategy Document,” which the sponsors say will be completed in 2014.

The ISRP commends the sponsors for developing what appears to be a rational, systematic procedure for project site selection and action. This approach could serve as a model for other restoration planning efforts in the subbasin, however many entities are working in the John Day Basin. Will they participate in the Strategy and follow the priority listing of projects? If so, how will they participate? There is a need to avoid duplication of effort in planning. The proposal states that "The Tribes would like to coordinate with basin partners and technical experts to leverage existing scientific data, physical information, and stakeholder input for the development of a strategic, prioritized restoration implementation strategy”. With the extensive planning efforts that have already been undertaken within the subbasin, including the Subbasin Plan and the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Conservation and Recovery Plan, it seems that much of what the Strategy proposes to do, that is determine fish use of stream reaches by life stage, limiting factor identification, site prioritization, appropriate remedial actions should have been completed some years ago. Why are partnerships still being built after 5 years? It seems they should have been already in place. It is not clear how well this proposed work is coordinated with ODFW, Soil and Water Conservation districts, and other basin entities. Why is prioritization only occurring now? It seems as though it should have been done prior to ongoing enhancement actions. The implementation phase of this work seems to be getting ahead of the coordination. It would have been helpful if the sponsors were more explicit about why their strategic approach is needed in lieu of other subbasin planning efforts. What will it provide that other planning documents have not?

As criteria for site selection, the sponsors may want to consider the locations of other restoration sites in the basin and proximity to high quality habitats.

The project objectives are actually goal statements and lack quantitative description of desired products or specified dates for completion. These need to be provided.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Restoration actions undertaken so far by this project are primarily passage improvement, juniper removal, riparian planting, LWD placement, and installation of cattle exclosures. Results consist primarily of descriptions of projects that have been undertaken to date. Few quantitative results were presented. The proposal could have been improved if the sponsors had discussed in more detail what sort of M&E program is currently in place, what kind of monitoring data has been collected, and whether the data have been analyzed and utilized.

The sponsors discuss extensively the Middle Fork John Day Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project in which they are a cooperator. It is unclear, however, how this project is related to the work set forth in the current proposal. The sponsors should have clearly identified how they will make use of the results from the IMW project in their proposed work and what role it has in development of the sponsor’s Implementation Strategy.

The sponsors consider development and implementation of the Strategy to represent adaptive management.

Restoration in the John Day has been ongoing for 30 years. Past ISRP comments (2006) suggested the need for clear criteria to prioritize projects, more M&E, development of an accomplishments report and review, and additional detail to be included in work elements. It appears that no retrospective analysis of past actions has been done. There is limited discussion of lessons learned and their application into program design or operation. A positive aspect is that there has been some upslope work that includes juniper treatment to improve streamflow. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the extent of this treatment needed to actually result in measurable increases in flow.

There are no clearly established criteria for prioritizing projects and there is little detail provided regarding key designs or considerations for work elements. There has been additional staffing for effectiveness monitoring.

To understand project significance at the landscape scale, the sponsors need to conceptualize at a wider scale than the reach scale. This is because many important processes, potentially affecting habitat quantity and quality, operate at broader than the reach scale. A geomorphologist should be included on the TAC for the project.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

There are a large number of projects pertaining to both fish and habitat on-going and planned in the John Day basin as well as IMW and other ISEMP projects. Many of these projects appear to be taking place in similar parts of the subbasin and some have different objectives than others. One of the major questions is how all of these projects coordinate their restoration and monitoring activities so as to be complementary and not duplicative, and maximize the probability that the projects, taken together, have a positive cumulative impact on fish and habitat. For example, is project site selection done cooperatively with all major entities involved? It seems that the proposed Implementation Strategy could be used cooperatively by all entities working in the subbasin. Are the monitoring efforts consistent among projects in terms of the monitoring design, data collected, and analyses conducted? The ISRP recognizes that answering these questions should not solely be the responsibility of the sponsors of this project but rather it should be a joint response by all cooperators in the subbasin.

The sponsors discuss climate change as a potential problem and maintain that their habitat restoration work will help to mitigate climate change impacts especially to the extent that the restoration actions reduce water temperatures. No potential effects on lamprey are discussed. Additionally, there is no discussion of forest health and potential effects of major fires or disease outbreaks on aquatic habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The first five Deliverables pertain to development of the Implementation Strategy which will prioritize project locations and is scheduled to be completed in 2014. Many of the remaining Deliverables are nearly restatements of the Objectives. Specific project locations are not identified in the Deliverables. They will be selected based on the outcome of the Implementation Strategy process. This approach is reasonable and should not delay commencement of the projects beyond 2014.

The work in public education and outreach is a positive element and it appears that a wide range of activities have been developed and implemented in the past few years.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

There is limited discussion on specific monitoring changes since the last ISRP review. There is no mention of future needs to become involved in ISEMP and AEM.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 12:57:22 PM.