| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|---|
| A | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) for the John Day River Basin | An RME Plan must establish status and trends of salmon and steelhead and their environment. In addition, factors limiting salmonid production and associated restoration actions need to be identified. Finally, evaluating the response of salmonids to the implementation of these actions through directed research and effectiveness monitoring is necessary in determining the success of and the future applicability of the restoration program. Establishment of an IMW in an experimental management framework will require the development of a RME program to address these components. Thus, the IMW will provide an excellent opportunity to develop and test a complete RME program within a relatively short time frame.
The status and trend monitoring and research projects, funded by BPA and BOR in the John Day, are being conducted by several entities over several scales (Bouwes 2004). These projects are designed to address specific question of ecological interactions of salmon and steelhead with their environment, and their status and trends that will serve as baseline conditions to compare against post-mitigation responses. Currently, this effort is being guided by the analytical framework group (AFG) established in 2003.
The AFG participants come from a number of agencies and organizations including: US Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA Fisheries, US Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon State University, the US Forest Service, and Eco Logical Research. In addition, the AFG interacts with participants of the subbasin planning process, the watershed councils, and the soil and conservation districts. Many of the participants are involved in research and monitoring in the John Day basin and are thus knowledgeable of the issues and challenges in this region.
To take advantage of the diverse information obtained through this research and monitoring, a fair amount of effort will be necessary to synthesize this into a perspective of identifying potential mitigation strategies for the recovery of salmon and steelhead. Implementation of identified mitigation strategy in the IMW will be conducted in an experimental approach to maximize learning while still trying to achieve population benefits. The success of fulfilling these goals depends on a careful design of mitigation actions, effectiveness monitoring, and research. Design considerations include identifying watersheds involved in this study to act as controls and treatments, applying treatments at the appropriate scale and magnitude, and implementation of an adequate effectiveness monitoring and research program. Organized through the AFG, a plan of the IMW study will be developed. | A | | Draft IMW plan completed | | 11/16/2005 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| A | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) for the John Day River Basin | An RME Plan must establish status and trends of salmon and steelhead and their environment. In addition, factors limiting salmonid production and associated restoration actions need to be identified. Finally, evaluating the response of salmonids to the implementation of these actions through directed research and effectiveness monitoring is necessary in determining the success of and the future applicability of the restoration program. Establishment of an IMW in an experimental management framework will require the development of a RME program to address these components. Thus, the IMW will provide an excellent opportunity to develop and test a complete RME program within a relatively short time frame.
The status and trend monitoring and research projects, funded by BPA and BOR in the John Day, are being conducted by several entities over several scales (Bouwes 2004). These projects are designed to address specific question of ecological interactions of salmon and steelhead with their environment, and their status and trends that will serve as baseline conditions to compare against post-mitigation responses. Currently, this effort is being guided by the analytical framework group (AFG) established in 2003.
The AFG participants come from a number of agencies and organizations including: US Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA Fisheries, US Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon State University, the US Forest Service, and Eco Logical Research. In addition, the AFG interacts with participants of the subbasin planning process, the watershed councils, and the soil and conservation districts. Many of the participants are involved in research and monitoring in the John Day basin and are thus knowledgeable of the issues and challenges in this region.
To take advantage of the diverse information obtained through this research and monitoring, a fair amount of effort will be necessary to synthesize this into a perspective of identifying potential mitigation strategies for the recovery of salmon and steelhead. Implementation of identified mitigation strategy in the IMW will be conducted in an experimental approach to maximize learning while still trying to achieve population benefits. The success of fulfilling these goals depends on a careful design of mitigation actions, effectiveness monitoring, and research. Design considerations include identifying watersheds involved in this study to act as controls and treatments, applying treatments at the appropriate scale and magnitude, and implementation of an adequate effectiveness monitoring and research program. Organized through the AFG, a plan of the IMW study will be developed. | B | | Final IMW plan completed | | 03/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| A | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) for the John Day River Basin | An RME Plan must establish status and trends of salmon and steelhead and their environment. In addition, factors limiting salmonid production and associated restoration actions need to be identified. Finally, evaluating the response of salmonids to the implementation of these actions through directed research and effectiveness monitoring is necessary in determining the success of and the future applicability of the restoration program. Establishment of an IMW in an experimental management framework will require the development of a RME program to address these components. Thus, the IMW will provide an excellent opportunity to develop and test a complete RME program within a relatively short time frame.
The status and trend monitoring and research projects, funded by BPA and BOR in the John Day, are being conducted by several entities over several scales (Bouwes 2004). These projects are designed to address specific question of ecological interactions of salmon and steelhead with their environment, and their status and trends that will serve as baseline conditions to compare against post-mitigation responses. Currently, this effort is being guided by the analytical framework group (AFG) established in 2003.
The AFG participants come from a number of agencies and organizations including: US Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA Fisheries, US Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon State University, the US Forest Service, and Eco Logical Research. In addition, the AFG interacts with participants of the subbasin planning process, the watershed councils, and the soil and conservation districts. Many of the participants are involved in research and monitoring in the John Day basin and are thus knowledgeable of the issues and challenges in this region.
To take advantage of the diverse information obtained through this research and monitoring, a fair amount of effort will be necessary to synthesize this into a perspective of identifying potential mitigation strategies for the recovery of salmon and steelhead. Implementation of identified mitigation strategy in the IMW will be conducted in an experimental approach to maximize learning while still trying to achieve population benefits. The success of fulfilling these goals depends on a careful design of mitigation actions, effectiveness monitoring, and research. Design considerations include identifying watersheds involved in this study to act as controls and treatments, applying treatments at the appropriate scale and magnitude, and implementation of an adequate effectiveness monitoring and research program. Organized through the AFG, a plan of the IMW study will be developed. | C | DELIV | Deliverable complete | | 03/31/2006 | Active | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| A | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) for the John Day River Basin | An RME Plan must establish status and trends of salmon and steelhead and their environment. In addition, factors limiting salmonid production and associated restoration actions need to be identified. Finally, evaluating the response of salmonids to the implementation of these actions through directed research and effectiveness monitoring is necessary in determining the success of and the future applicability of the restoration program. Establishment of an IMW in an experimental management framework will require the development of a RME program to address these components. Thus, the IMW will provide an excellent opportunity to develop and test a complete RME program within a relatively short time frame.
The status and trend monitoring and research projects, funded by BPA and BOR in the John Day, are being conducted by several entities over several scales (Bouwes 2004). These projects are designed to address specific question of ecological interactions of salmon and steelhead with their environment, and their status and trends that will serve as baseline conditions to compare against post-mitigation responses. Currently, this effort is being guided by the analytical framework group (AFG) established in 2003.
The AFG participants come from a number of agencies and organizations including: US Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA Fisheries, US Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon State University, the US Forest Service, and Eco Logical Research. In addition, the AFG interacts with participants of the subbasin planning process, the watershed councils, and the soil and conservation districts. Many of the participants are involved in research and monitoring in the John Day basin and are thus knowledgeable of the issues and challenges in this region.
To take advantage of the diverse information obtained through this research and monitoring, a fair amount of effort will be necessary to synthesize this into a perspective of identifying potential mitigation strategies for the recovery of salmon and steelhead. Implementation of identified mitigation strategy in the IMW will be conducted in an experimental approach to maximize learning while still trying to achieve population benefits. The success of fulfilling these goals depends on a careful design of mitigation actions, effectiveness monitoring, and research. Design considerations include identifying watersheds involved in this study to act as controls and treatments, applying treatments at the appropriate scale and magnitude, and implementation of an adequate effectiveness monitoring and research program. Organized through the AFG, a plan of the IMW study will be developed. | D | | Coordinate the IMW with th eAnalytical Framework Group (AFG) | 02/01/2005 | 05/31/2005 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| A | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) for the John Day River Basin | An RME Plan must establish status and trends of salmon and steelhead and their environment. In addition, factors limiting salmonid production and associated restoration actions need to be identified. Finally, evaluating the response of salmonids to the implementation of these actions through directed research and effectiveness monitoring is necessary in determining the success of and the future applicability of the restoration program. Establishment of an IMW in an experimental management framework will require the development of a RME program to address these components. Thus, the IMW will provide an excellent opportunity to develop and test a complete RME program within a relatively short time frame.
The status and trend monitoring and research projects, funded by BPA and BOR in the John Day, are being conducted by several entities over several scales (Bouwes 2004). These projects are designed to address specific question of ecological interactions of salmon and steelhead with their environment, and their status and trends that will serve as baseline conditions to compare against post-mitigation responses. Currently, this effort is being guided by the analytical framework group (AFG) established in 2003.
The AFG participants come from a number of agencies and organizations including: US Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA Fisheries, US Environmental Protection Agency, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon State University, the US Forest Service, and Eco Logical Research. In addition, the AFG interacts with participants of the subbasin planning process, the watershed councils, and the soil and conservation districts. Many of the participants are involved in research and monitoring in the John Day basin and are thus knowledgeable of the issues and challenges in this region.
To take advantage of the diverse information obtained through this research and monitoring, a fair amount of effort will be necessary to synthesize this into a perspective of identifying potential mitigation strategies for the recovery of salmon and steelhead. Implementation of identified mitigation strategy in the IMW will be conducted in an experimental approach to maximize learning while still trying to achieve population benefits. The success of fulfilling these goals depends on a careful design of mitigation actions, effectiveness monitoring, and research. Design considerations include identifying watersheds involved in this study to act as controls and treatments, applying treatments at the appropriate scale and magnitude, and implementation of an adequate effectiveness monitoring and research program. Organized through the AFG, a plan of the IMW study will be developed. | E | | Maintain website | 02/01/2005 | 03/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| B | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an RM&E plan for the John Day River Basin | The first step of the basinwide RME plan requires a limiting factors analysis for all watersheds. The AFG can coordinate with other efforts that have been working towards this goal such as subbasin planning, which has used the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment model (EDT) throughout the John Day to identify limiting factors. Other processes will also feed into this larger effort such as the Technical Recovery Team, and various watershed and recovery plans throughout the basin. The current research coordinated under the AFG will also be useful in this process, especially projects describing how landscape patterns and land use practices relate to habitat and fish distribution at the reach and watershed scale, because these studies occur throughout the John Day basin. Also, status and trend monitoring programs throughout the John Day will provide baseline information that will be used as a reference to evaluate restoration effectiveness.
Next, a prioritization of restoration efforts by watershed will be necessary. Priority will be determined by potential importance for aiding in the recovery of focal species, potential for improvement (e.g. comparison between historic and current condition), practicality of implementation (e.g. private landowners, expense, etc.), and the likelihood to detect change given what has been learned from the ability of monitoring programs to distinguish signals from noise. Multiple restoration projects throughout the John Day basin will likely be done with the cooperation of several interested parties. There may also be opportunities to evaluate existing restoration activities retrospectively. Information on restoration efforts to date throughout the John Day have already been complied and archived in the John Day geodatabase administered by the BOR.
Finally, lessons learned from past research and monitoring, and the IMW study will be useful in designing effectiveness monitoring and research programs over the basin. Also, design of effectiveness monitoring may also consider evaluation of restoration projects in an experimental management framework where watersheds/reaches with a restoration action, or a suite of restoration actions are compared against control watersheds/reaches. The larger scale of the John Day may provide opportunities for greater spatial comparisons, higher replicates of treatments and controls, and greater universe of restoration types for extrapolation to other basins. | A | | Preliminary designs of RM&E plan | | 01/16/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| B | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an RM&E plan for the John Day River Basin | The first step of the basinwide RME plan requires a limiting factors analysis for all watersheds. The AFG can coordinate with other efforts that have been working towards this goal such as subbasin planning, which has used the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment model (EDT) throughout the John Day to identify limiting factors. Other processes will also feed into this larger effort such as the Technical Recovery Team, and various watershed and recovery plans throughout the basin. The current research coordinated under the AFG will also be useful in this process, especially projects describing how landscape patterns and land use practices relate to habitat and fish distribution at the reach and watershed scale, because these studies occur throughout the John Day basin. Also, status and trend monitoring programs throughout the John Day will provide baseline information that will be used as a reference to evaluate restoration effectiveness.
Next, a prioritization of restoration efforts by watershed will be necessary. Priority will be determined by potential importance for aiding in the recovery of focal species, potential for improvement (e.g. comparison between historic and current condition), practicality of implementation (e.g. private landowners, expense, etc.), and the likelihood to detect change given what has been learned from the ability of monitoring programs to distinguish signals from noise. Multiple restoration projects throughout the John Day basin will likely be done with the cooperation of several interested parties. There may also be opportunities to evaluate existing restoration activities retrospectively. Information on restoration efforts to date throughout the John Day have already been complied and archived in the John Day geodatabase administered by the BOR.
Finally, lessons learned from past research and monitoring, and the IMW study will be useful in designing effectiveness monitoring and research programs over the basin. Also, design of effectiveness monitoring may also consider evaluation of restoration projects in an experimental management framework where watersheds/reaches with a restoration action, or a suite of restoration actions are compared against control watersheds/reaches. The larger scale of the John Day may provide opportunities for greater spatial comparisons, higher replicates of treatments and controls, and greater universe of restoration types for extrapolation to other basins. | B | | Coordinate development of the RM&E plan | 02/01/2005 | 03/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| B | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an RM&E plan for the John Day River Basin | The first step of the basinwide RME plan requires a limiting factors analysis for all watersheds. The AFG can coordinate with other efforts that have been working towards this goal such as subbasin planning, which has used the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment model (EDT) throughout the John Day to identify limiting factors. Other processes will also feed into this larger effort such as the Technical Recovery Team, and various watershed and recovery plans throughout the basin. The current research coordinated under the AFG will also be useful in this process, especially projects describing how landscape patterns and land use practices relate to habitat and fish distribution at the reach and watershed scale, because these studies occur throughout the John Day basin. Also, status and trend monitoring programs throughout the John Day will provide baseline information that will be used as a reference to evaluate restoration effectiveness.
Next, a prioritization of restoration efforts by watershed will be necessary. Priority will be determined by potential importance for aiding in the recovery of focal species, potential for improvement (e.g. comparison between historic and current condition), practicality of implementation (e.g. private landowners, expense, etc.), and the likelihood to detect change given what has been learned from the ability of monitoring programs to distinguish signals from noise. Multiple restoration projects throughout the John Day basin will likely be done with the cooperation of several interested parties. There may also be opportunities to evaluate existing restoration activities retrospectively. Information on restoration efforts to date throughout the John Day have already been complied and archived in the John Day geodatabase administered by the BOR.
Finally, lessons learned from past research and monitoring, and the IMW study will be useful in designing effectiveness monitoring and research programs over the basin. Also, design of effectiveness monitoring may also consider evaluation of restoration projects in an experimental management framework where watersheds/reaches with a restoration action, or a suite of restoration actions are compared against control watersheds/reaches. The larger scale of the John Day may provide opportunities for greater spatial comparisons, higher replicates of treatments and controls, and greater universe of restoration types for extrapolation to other basins. | C | | Facilitate regular AFG meetings | 02/01/2005 | 03/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| B | 174 | Produce Plan | Develop an RM&E plan for the John Day River Basin | The first step of the basinwide RME plan requires a limiting factors analysis for all watersheds. The AFG can coordinate with other efforts that have been working towards this goal such as subbasin planning, which has used the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment model (EDT) throughout the John Day to identify limiting factors. Other processes will also feed into this larger effort such as the Technical Recovery Team, and various watershed and recovery plans throughout the basin. The current research coordinated under the AFG will also be useful in this process, especially projects describing how landscape patterns and land use practices relate to habitat and fish distribution at the reach and watershed scale, because these studies occur throughout the John Day basin. Also, status and trend monitoring programs throughout the John Day will provide baseline information that will be used as a reference to evaluate restoration effectiveness.
Next, a prioritization of restoration efforts by watershed will be necessary. Priority will be determined by potential importance for aiding in the recovery of focal species, potential for improvement (e.g. comparison between historic and current condition), practicality of implementation (e.g. private landowners, expense, etc.), and the likelihood to detect change given what has been learned from the ability of monitoring programs to distinguish signals from noise. Multiple restoration projects throughout the John Day basin will likely be done with the cooperation of several interested parties. There may also be opportunities to evaluate existing restoration activities retrospectively. Information on restoration efforts to date throughout the John Day have already been complied and archived in the John Day geodatabase administered by the BOR.
Finally, lessons learned from past research and monitoring, and the IMW study will be useful in designing effectiveness monitoring and research programs over the basin. Also, design of effectiveness monitoring may also consider evaluation of restoration projects in an experimental management framework where watersheds/reaches with a restoration action, or a suite of restoration actions are compared against control watersheds/reaches. The larger scale of the John Day may provide opportunities for greater spatial comparisons, higher replicates of treatments and controls, and greater universe of restoration types for extrapolation to other basins. | D | DELIV | Deliverable complete | | 03/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| C | 141 | Produce Other Reports | Regular status reports | Until 7/1/05, progress reports will be submitted quarterly to both the project's Principle Investigator (Dr. Chris Jordan, NOAA) and to the BPA COTR and will summarize the following by objective:
• Budget
o Funding originally budgeted:
o Estimate of expenditures during the reporting period:
o Funding remaining:
• Work completed
• Problems encountered/resolved, changes in work plan, or schedule deviations
• Activities planned for the next progress reporting period.
Beginning approximately 7/1/05, progress reports to BPA will be completed online through the Pisces system, using a Green/Yellow/Red code for each contract milestone. | A | | FY05 Qtr 2 status report | | 04/15/2005 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| C | 141 | Produce Other Reports | Regular status reports | Until 7/1/05, progress reports will be submitted quarterly to both the project's Principle Investigator (Dr. Chris Jordan, NOAA) and to the BPA COTR and will summarize the following by objective:
• Budget
o Funding originally budgeted:
o Estimate of expenditures during the reporting period:
o Funding remaining:
• Work completed
• Problems encountered/resolved, changes in work plan, or schedule deviations
• Activities planned for the next progress reporting period.
Beginning approximately 7/1/05, progress reports to BPA will be completed online through the Pisces system, using a Green/Yellow/Red code for each contract milestone. | B | | FY05 Qtr 3 status report | | 07/15/2005 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| C | 141 | Produce Other Reports | Regular status reports | Until 7/1/05, progress reports will be submitted quarterly to both the project's Principle Investigator (Dr. Chris Jordan, NOAA) and to the BPA COTR and will summarize the following by objective:
• Budget
o Funding originally budgeted:
o Estimate of expenditures during the reporting period:
o Funding remaining:
• Work completed
• Problems encountered/resolved, changes in work plan, or schedule deviations
• Activities planned for the next progress reporting period.
Beginning approximately 7/1/05, progress reports to BPA will be completed online through the Pisces system, using a Green/Yellow/Red code for each contract milestone. | C | DELIV | Deliverable complete | | 07/15/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| D | 132 | Produce Progress (Annual) Report | Report Annual Progress | The draft annual report will include:
• Abstract (limit 600 words)
• Introduction
• Description of project area
• Methods and materials by objective
• Results and discussion of results by objective
• Summary and conclusions
• Summary of expenditures, including a list of major property purchased during the contracting period
• Supplemental volume or appendices that contain detailed summaries of all data collected
A final annual report will be provided within one month of receiving BPA comments on the draft annual report. The final report will be provided in electronic format consistent with the instructions for preparing and submitting electronic reports on BPA's Web site. | A | | Submit draft annual report | | 11/16/2005 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| D | 132 | Produce Progress (Annual) Report | Report Annual Progress | The draft annual report will include:
• Abstract (limit 600 words)
• Introduction
• Description of project area
• Methods and materials by objective
• Results and discussion of results by objective
• Summary and conclusions
• Summary of expenditures, including a list of major property purchased during the contracting period
• Supplemental volume or appendices that contain detailed summaries of all data collected
A final annual report will be provided within one month of receiving BPA comments on the draft annual report. The final report will be provided in electronic format consistent with the instructions for preparing and submitting electronic reports on BPA's Web site. | B | | Submit final annual report | | 03/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| D | 132 | Produce Progress (Annual) Report | Report Annual Progress | The draft annual report will include:
• Abstract (limit 600 words)
• Introduction
• Description of project area
• Methods and materials by objective
• Results and discussion of results by objective
• Summary and conclusions
• Summary of expenditures, including a list of major property purchased during the contracting period
• Supplemental volume or appendices that contain detailed summaries of all data collected
A final annual report will be provided within one month of receiving BPA comments on the draft annual report. The final report will be provided in electronic format consistent with the instructions for preparing and submitting electronic reports on BPA's Web site. | C | DELIV | Deliverable complete | | 01/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| E | 119 | Manage and Administer Projects | Prepare/submit contracting and financial information | Administrative work that supports BPA's programmatic and contracting requirements, such as financial reporting (accrual estimates) and development of an SOW package for the next contract period. | A | | Develop and submit draft SOW and budget package | 10/01/2005 | 11/01/2005 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| E | 119 | Manage and Administer Projects | Prepare/submit contracting and financial information | Administrative work that supports BPA's programmatic and contracting requirements, such as financial reporting (accrual estimates) and development of an SOW package for the next contract period. | B | | Accrual Estimates | 02/01/2005 | 01/31/2006 | Concluded | | 02/01/2006 7:03 AM |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in
