Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement
Project Number:
1984-021-00
Title:
John Day Habitat Enhancement
Summary:
See contract description
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1984
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau John Day 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Cottonwood Creek/ Nansen property 2011, after five years of recovery.

Figure Name: Photo 1

Document ID: P125696

Document: John Day River Sub-basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project; 3/11 - 1/12

Page Number: 22

Project: 1984-021-00

Contract: 56429

Cottonwood Creek/Nansen property 2006, before riparian project.

Figure Name: Photo 2

Document ID: P125696

Document: John Day River Sub-basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project; 3/11 - 1/12

Page Number: 22

Project: 1984-021-00

Contract: 56429

Mid-Columbia Steelhead returned to Thirtymile Creek, this riparian project (Kinzua Golf) was completed in 2009.

Figure Name: Photo 3

Document ID: P125696

Document: John Day River Sub-basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project; 3/11 - 1/12

Page Number: 23

Project: 1984-021-00

Contract: 56429


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $582,143 $582,143 $582,143 $582,143 $582,550

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $582,143 $582,143 $582,143 $582,550
FY2017 (Current) $582,143 $582,143 $582,143 $582,143 $300,849

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $582,143 $582,143 $582,143 $300,849
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $582,143 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $582,143 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 21 %
FY2015 10 %
FY2014 21 %
FY2013 12 %
FY2012 42 %
FY2011 7 %
FY2010 22 %
FY2009 37 %
FY2008 26 %
FY2007 15 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Local project sponsors $0
FY2015 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board - Technical Assistance $63,000
FY2016 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board $158,453

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
5632 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1984-021-00 MAINSTEM, MIDDLE FORK, JOHN DAY RIVERS, OREGON History $1,392,151 3/1/2001 - 2/28/2005
21625 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PI 198402100 JOHN DAY SUBBASIN HABITAT PROGRAM History $426,902 3/1/2005 - 2/28/2006
24750 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs ARCH CONSTRUCT MONITOR'G AT OXBOW History $3,481 9/30/2005 - 12/31/2005
26527 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1984-021-00 EXP JOHN DAY SUBBASIN HABITAT PROGRAM History $421,805 3/1/2006 - 2/28/2007
71856 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1984-021-00 EXP JOHN DAY HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Issued $582,143 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2017
75300 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1984-021-00 EXP JOHN DAY HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Issued $582,143 3/1/2017 - 2/28/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:12
On time:12
Status Reports
Completed:46
On time:22
Avg Days Late:7

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
5632 21625, 26527, 33040, 36930, 41751, 46869, 52495, 56429, 60620, 65076, 68536, 71856, 75300 1984-021-00 MAINSTEM, MIDDLE FORK, JOHN DAY RIVERS, OREGON Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/2001 03/2001 Issued 46 273 1 0 19 293 93.52% 7
Project Totals 46 273 1 0 19 293 93.52% 7


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1984-021-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1984-021-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

The goal of this project is to enhance riparian and instream habitat through fencing, planting in riparian areas, non-native plant eradication, and improvements in passage. The work is intended to benefit recovery of ESA listed summer steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. The sponsors provided a thorough review of current knowledge of the effects of grazing on habitat and fish in the John Day basin. They also provided a program summary in response to the 2008 ISRP review which had a lengthy discussion of projects and accomplishments. The report was informative and provided evidence of ecological responses to riparian restoration.

The project appears to be well-coordinated with an array of other programs and projects in the John Day subbasin. It is consistent with the FCRPS BiOp, the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, and the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan.

The sponsors plan to develop relationships between a measure of freshwater productivity (the residuals of the relationship between smolts/redd or smolts/ number of redds) and habitat variables at the watershed scale to determine which variables are having the greatest and least impact on fish productivity. The sponsors assert that using residuals filters out the effects of density-dependence. The results of this analysis are intended to guide future habitat enhancement actions.

The sponsors are moving in the right direction in trying to sort out the effects of habitat variables and density-dependence on freshwater fish productivity. Using the residuals from the regression of smolts/redd (or spawner) against number of redds will remove the linear effect of number of redds. Another approach the sponsors should consider, which would provide more information, would be to use multiple regression with smolts /redd regressed against number of redds and habitat variables in the same model. The advantage in this approach is that it would determine how much correlation there is among the habitat variables and number of redds. Another consideration is that the sponsor’s analytical approach is not able to determine which life stage, for example egg-fry or fry-parr survival, is being benefitted most by habitat enhancement. They should consider using life stage specific measures of productivity and survival.

The goal of the project is clear. It is intended to improve ecological river function on private lands. The sponsors present two rather general objectives, the first of which largely restates the project goal in slightly more specific terms. The objectives are stated in qualitative terms and lack a time frame for expected response. These objectives should be re-stated in more quantitative terms.

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

A large number of enhancement projects have been implemented since the inception of this project. The program has a long history and reports "restoring" nearly 200 miles of stream. A little surprising is the fact that, although response times of habitat to enhancement actions are slow (15-30 years), current agreements with landowners expire after 15 years. It would be beneficial for habitat recovery if there was a movement toward longer-term agreements with landowners, given the investments made and longer expected response times for habitat recovery. Additionally, there was no mention of how enhancement sites were selected, and if and how that process has been improved over time to be more strategic and effective. It would seem that with the large number of potential stream miles needing treatment (about 50% based on rough estimates provided by ODFW) and the limits to the actual miles that can be treated, a strategic approach for treatment area selection would be critical.

Although not quantitative, a series of more than 250 photo points for 42 projects is discussed and examples provided. These show good visual characterization of riparian response with a reported 87% positive response. There was no mention if there had been an effort to stratify sites by channel and valley type or even stream order to see if there might have been informative relationships. Additionally temperature, bank stability, neotropical bird counts, and channel transects have been used and, although quantitative results appear limited, those reported in the proposal indicate some promising trends. It appears that currently only channel transects and bank cover measurements are being used, but there is no discussion of why other channel morphology parameters were not reported.

In their latest review of this project (ISRP 2008-8) the ISRP expressed serious concern that habitat results were not adequately reported and wondered if an M&E plan was even in place. To a degree this concern still exists. Although some fish data were analyzed quantitatively at the watershed scale, presumably as part of the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed (MFJDR IMW) project, little analysis and interpretation of habitat data are presented, and no RM&E protocols are identified in the proposal.

The sponsors provide a rationale implying that there may be little need for them to conduct comprehensive site specific M&E in the future. Apparently the effectiveness of the suite of habitat enhancement projects implemented in the upper Middle Fork, including those executed by this project, will be inferred from work being conducted by the MFJDR IMW. The IMW will determine freshwater productivity (smolts/redd) at a location downstream from multiple sites where habitat enhancement actions have been implemented. The IMW project thus is intended to evaluate the cumulative effectiveness of all upstream habitat enhancement actions. This type of watershed or “population” scale evaluation is appropriate and could yield valuable information on freshwater productivity of focal species. It would have been useful if the sponsors stated what proportions of these sites were implemented by their project.

The sponsors contend that site specific M&E can be compromised by fish movement into the treated sites from areas outside them. Fish movement has been considered as a confounding factor in several studies evaluating fish response to habitat enhancement. Fish movement, however, could be viewed as a positive outcome of a restoration action. For example, if juvenile fish move into a newly created pool or into a fenced reach where habitat is recovering, they may have moved to these areas from less favorable habitat. The inference is that as a consequence of movement from less to more favorable habitat, fish survival and growth and subsequently freshwater productivity may improve. Movement, then, is a benefit to fitness and so can be viewed not as a confounding factor in evaluating effectiveness of a habitat project but as a positive outcome of the project.

In lieu of conducting site level effectiveness monitoring of habitat actions, the sponsors are relying on work being conducted by the Bridge Creek and Middle Fork John Day IMW to establish a “cause-effect relationship between habitat restoration and fish response” at the site or reach scale. Supposedly, the benefits for fish of particular kinds of site specific habitat enhancement actions, for example fencing and beaver dams, will be determined by this work. From the IMW results, the sponsors will infer effectiveness of their projects so alleviating their need to monitor each of them.

There is some justification for this approach as one of the purposes of ISEMP is to evaluate effectiveness of individual kinds of habitat restoration actions, recognizing that there is neither time, nor funds to evaluate individually the hundreds of habitat enhancement projects in the Columbia Basin. The sponsors, however, do not discuss whether ISEMP has reached the stage where their results can be applied to this project and when those results are expected. Nor is it clear that IMW results will be generalizable to all sites. There was no mention of future coordination or involvement with the Action Effectiveness Monitoring program. A base level implementation and compliance monitoring for each treatment type should be considered to augment IMW monitoring.

A variety of lessons learned and how they have changed project design and implementation is provided.

Evaluation of Results

This project began in 1984, and during this time has implemented an impressive number of habitat enhancement projects on private lands. The project appears to be well-managed and continues to produce expected products. It appears to enjoy good relationships with local landowners which should ensure its continued success.

Since its inception, the project has almost exclusively been dedicated to implementation of enhancement projects and has conducted only very limited effectiveness monitoring. Very little quantitative data pertaining to effectiveness monitoring was presented in the proposal and in its annual reports. Although M&E has been was mentioned in all annual reports, the only monitoring information that was reported consisted primarily of informative photo points and limited data on stream temperature and channel morphology at selected restoration sites. The sponsor’s rationale for lack of M&E is that watershed-scale effectiveness monitoring and site specific evaluation of particular kinds of enhancement actions is the purview of ISEMP’s IMW projects thus alleviating the need for M&E by this project. Whether M&E should be the responsibility of the IMW’s or the individual projects continues to be a concern for many habitat enhancement actions in the interior Columbia basin.

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

Program activities appear to be well coordinated with tribal, state, federal agencies, and private landowners. Of particular importance is the apparent positive coordination with land management agencies that are responsible for about 1/3 of the upper watershed but a disproportionate share of higher quality habitat. This project closely coordinates with ISEMP and will rely on results of ISEMP’s work in Intensively Monitored Watersheds in the John Day to determine whether particular enhancement actions produce positive benefits for habitat and fish.

The sponsors provided a good review of possible climate change effects on fish in the Mid-Columbia. They maintain that the enhancement actions they are undertaking may help to detect and ameliorate these changes. There was a detailed discussion regarding the role of healthy riparian ecosystems as a hedge against climate change. There was no mention of improved connectivity as a similar important consideration. Additionally, there was no mention of issues like minimum stream flows or long term forest health, land use, and resource management changes that are, or could likely occur.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Deliverables seem straightforward. There are no deliverables for M&E. Again, it appears that a very limited M&E program mostly involving photo points is in place.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

A variety of past monitoring activities were discussed and some results from them were discussed. Examples of periodic before and after photos for multiple years were provided. These examples showed clear visual tracking of vegetation response to habitat enhancement. It appears that monitoring activities have consisted of photo points and bank cover and channel transect monitoring at a few sites. There was no discussion of why these particular measures were selected. There should be more emphasis on monitoring to understand why some plantings and other activities work or do not work in particular situations.


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

The ISRP's concerns, questions, and comments can be dealt with in contracting, project document development, and future reviews.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
The sponsors should clarify the role of ISEMP's IMW projects in M&E. If the sponsors are relying on the IMWs to provide site and reach scale evaluations of the effectiveness of various kinds of habitat actions, they should be certain that the IMW project has reached the point where its results can be extrapolated to the sponsor's project within the current project period and, if not, when this can be expected to occur
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
This project appears to be a solid program that is continuing important work. Some additional work to refine the program through strategic site selection, longer term agreements with landowners, and a more clearly stated plan for long term monitoring would improve effectiveness and efficiency and should be considered.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
The sponsors should ensure that their project is closely coordinated with the Confederated Tribes of the Warms Springs' project, including identifying priority locations for restoration and division of activities. They should identify plans to cooperate with BPA's Action Effectiveness Monitoring program.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

The goal of this project is to enhance riparian and instream habitat through fencing, planting in riparian areas, non-native plant eradication, and improvements in passage. The work is intended to benefit recovery of ESA listed summer steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. The sponsors provided a thorough review of current knowledge of the effects of grazing on habitat and fish in the John Day basin. They also provided a program summary in response to the 2008 ISRP review which had a lengthy discussion of projects and accomplishments. The report was informative and provided evidence of ecological responses to riparian restoration.

The project appears to be well-coordinated with an array of other programs and projects in the John Day subbasin. It is consistent with the FCRPS BiOp, the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, and the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan.

The sponsors plan to develop relationships between a measure of freshwater productivity (the residuals of the relationship between smolts/redd or smolts/ number of redds) and habitat variables at the watershed scale to determine which variables are having the greatest and least impact on fish productivity. The sponsors assert that using residuals filters out the effects of density-dependence. The results of this analysis are intended to guide future habitat enhancement actions.

The sponsors are moving in the right direction in trying to sort out the effects of habitat variables and density-dependence on freshwater fish productivity. Using the residuals from the regression of smolts/redd (or spawner) against number of redds will remove the linear effect of number of redds. Another approach the sponsors should consider, which would provide more information, would be to use multiple regression with smolts /redd regressed against number of redds and habitat variables in the same model. The advantage in this approach is that it would determine how much correlation there is among the habitat variables and number of redds. Another consideration is that the sponsor’s analytical approach is not able to determine which life stage, for example egg-fry or fry-parr survival, is being benefitted most by habitat enhancement. They should consider using life stage specific measures of productivity and survival.

The goal of the project is clear. It is intended to improve ecological river function on private lands. The sponsors present two rather general objectives, the first of which largely restates the project goal in slightly more specific terms. The objectives are stated in qualitative terms and lack a time frame for expected response. These objectives should be re-stated in more quantitative terms.

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

A large number of enhancement projects have been implemented since the inception of this project. The program has a long history and reports "restoring" nearly 200 miles of stream. A little surprising is the fact that, although response times of habitat to enhancement actions are slow (15-30 years), current agreements with landowners expire after 15 years. It would be beneficial for habitat recovery if there was a movement toward longer-term agreements with landowners, given the investments made and longer expected response times for habitat recovery. Additionally, there was no mention of how enhancement sites were selected, and if and how that process has been improved over time to be more strategic and effective. It would seem that with the large number of potential stream miles needing treatment (about 50% based on rough estimates provided by ODFW) and the limits to the actual miles that can be treated, a strategic approach for treatment area selection would be critical.

Although not quantitative, a series of more than 250 photo points for 42 projects is discussed and examples provided. These show good visual characterization of riparian response with a reported 87% positive response. There was no mention if there had been an effort to stratify sites by channel and valley type or even stream order to see if there might have been informative relationships. Additionally temperature, bank stability, neotropical bird counts, and channel transects have been used and, although quantitative results appear limited, those reported in the proposal indicate some promising trends. It appears that currently only channel transects and bank cover measurements are being used, but there is no discussion of why other channel morphology parameters were not reported.

In their latest review of this project (ISRP 2008-8) the ISRP expressed serious concern that habitat results were not adequately reported and wondered if an M&E plan was even in place. To a degree this concern still exists. Although some fish data were analyzed quantitatively at the watershed scale, presumably as part of the Middle Fork John Day River Intensively Monitored Watershed (MFJDR IMW) project, little analysis and interpretation of habitat data are presented, and no RM&E protocols are identified in the proposal.

The sponsors provide a rationale implying that there may be little need for them to conduct comprehensive site specific M&E in the future. Apparently the effectiveness of the suite of habitat enhancement projects implemented in the upper Middle Fork, including those executed by this project, will be inferred from work being conducted by the MFJDR IMW. The IMW will determine freshwater productivity (smolts/redd) at a location downstream from multiple sites where habitat enhancement actions have been implemented. The IMW project thus is intended to evaluate the cumulative effectiveness of all upstream habitat enhancement actions. This type of watershed or “population” scale evaluation is appropriate and could yield valuable information on freshwater productivity of focal species. It would have been useful if the sponsors stated what proportions of these sites were implemented by their project.

The sponsors contend that site specific M&E can be compromised by fish movement into the treated sites from areas outside them. Fish movement has been considered as a confounding factor in several studies evaluating fish response to habitat enhancement. Fish movement, however, could be viewed as a positive outcome of a restoration action. For example, if juvenile fish move into a newly created pool or into a fenced reach where habitat is recovering, they may have moved to these areas from less favorable habitat. The inference is that as a consequence of movement from less to more favorable habitat, fish survival and growth and subsequently freshwater productivity may improve. Movement, then, is a benefit to fitness and so can be viewed not as a confounding factor in evaluating effectiveness of a habitat project but as a positive outcome of the project.

In lieu of conducting site level effectiveness monitoring of habitat actions, the sponsors are relying on work being conducted by the Bridge Creek and Middle Fork John Day IMW to establish a “cause-effect relationship between habitat restoration and fish response” at the site or reach scale. Supposedly, the benefits for fish of particular kinds of site specific habitat enhancement actions, for example fencing and beaver dams, will be determined by this work. From the IMW results, the sponsors will infer effectiveness of their projects so alleviating their need to monitor each of them.

There is some justification for this approach as one of the purposes of ISEMP is to evaluate effectiveness of individual kinds of habitat restoration actions, recognizing that there is neither time, nor funds to evaluate individually the hundreds of habitat enhancement projects in the Columbia Basin. The sponsors, however, do not discuss whether ISEMP has reached the stage where their results can be applied to this project and when those results are expected. Nor is it clear that IMW results will be generalizable to all sites. There was no mention of future coordination or involvement with the Action Effectiveness Monitoring program. A base level implementation and compliance monitoring for each treatment type should be considered to augment IMW monitoring.

A variety of lessons learned and how they have changed project design and implementation is provided.

Evaluation of Results

This project began in 1984, and during this time has implemented an impressive number of habitat enhancement projects on private lands. The project appears to be well-managed and continues to produce expected products. It appears to enjoy good relationships with local landowners which should ensure its continued success.

Since its inception, the project has almost exclusively been dedicated to implementation of enhancement projects and has conducted only very limited effectiveness monitoring. Very little quantitative data pertaining to effectiveness monitoring was presented in the proposal and in its annual reports. Although M&E has been was mentioned in all annual reports, the only monitoring information that was reported consisted primarily of informative photo points and limited data on stream temperature and channel morphology at selected restoration sites. The sponsor’s rationale for lack of M&E is that watershed-scale effectiveness monitoring and site specific evaluation of particular kinds of enhancement actions is the purview of ISEMP’s IMW projects thus alleviating the need for M&E by this project. Whether M&E should be the responsibility of the IMW’s or the individual projects continues to be a concern for many habitat enhancement actions in the interior Columbia basin.

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

Program activities appear to be well coordinated with tribal, state, federal agencies, and private landowners. Of particular importance is the apparent positive coordination with land management agencies that are responsible for about 1/3 of the upper watershed but a disproportionate share of higher quality habitat. This project closely coordinates with ISEMP and will rely on results of ISEMP’s work in Intensively Monitored Watersheds in the John Day to determine whether particular enhancement actions produce positive benefits for habitat and fish.

The sponsors provided a good review of possible climate change effects on fish in the Mid-Columbia. They maintain that the enhancement actions they are undertaking may help to detect and ameliorate these changes. There was a detailed discussion regarding the role of healthy riparian ecosystems as a hedge against climate change. There was no mention of improved connectivity as a similar important consideration. Additionally, there was no mention of issues like minimum stream flows or long term forest health, land use, and resource management changes that are, or could likely occur.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Deliverables seem straightforward. There are no deliverables for M&E. Again, it appears that a very limited M&E program mostly involving photo points is in place.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

A variety of past monitoring activities were discussed and some results from them were discussed. Examples of periodic before and after photos for multiple years were provided. These examples showed clear visual tracking of vegetation response to habitat enhancement. It appears that monitoring activities have consisted of photo points and bank cover and channel transect monitoring at a few sites. There was no discussion of why these particular measures were selected. There should be more emphasis on monitoring to understand why some plantings and other activities work or do not work in particular situations.


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

The ISRP's concerns, questions, and comments can be dealt with in contracting, project document development, and future reviews.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:20:01 PM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1984-021-00-NPCC-20131122
Project: 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1984-021-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through FY 2018: Sponsor to address ISRP qualification #2 regarding site selection in contracting. For ISRP qualification #1, see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring. For ISRP qualification #3, sponsor to work with CTWSRO on developing the Implementation Strategy (see the recommendation for project # 2007-397-00).
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—For ISRP qualification #1, see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—For ISRP qualification #3, sponsor to work with CTWSRO on developing the Implementation Strategy (see the recommendation for project # 2007-397-00).
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualification #2 regarding site selection in contracting.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1984-021-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1984-021-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Multiple fish habitat restoration projects (fencing, water development for livestock), appears to be on both private and public lands; multiple other entities may be authorized/required; need confirmation of screening or other criteria to ensure BPA is not funding activities landowner already required to perform; need confirmation that no cost-share is reasonable. Upon review, COTR confirms activities occurring on private land. Rating not changed pending review of cost-share levels generally.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1984-021-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1984-021-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1984-021-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Three previous reviews have emphasized that future funding would be contingent upon providing analysis of project results based on quantitative monitoring of biological outcomes, specifically, habitat characteristics and presence of target species. The sponsor's response included excerpts from both a project-specific review from 1991 and a more general study from 2002, along with some example photopoint comparisons.

The sponsors have obviously conducted a locally popular program with results in re-vegetating of riparian corridors, as evidenced by the photopoint monitoring described in the response. After 22 years, the project should be showing changes in characteristics such as abundance of fishes, bank stability, and stream width-depth relationships. It is doubtful that before/after photopoint comparisons alone would be adequate for assessing some of the parameters listed in the proposal.

The 1991 and 2002 citations support continued fencing, but it is noted that sites studied by Kauffman et al. 2004, may not all be John Day sites and impacts on fish summarized from that paper are inconclusive. Citing preliminary analysis from project #199801600 might suggest that it would be wise to review project plans in terms of these more specific goals. Are current project proposals and priorities in line with these goals? Several project specific measurements are cited but not in the context of the watershed as a whole.

Another question is, overall, how much progress has been made toward project implementation goals? For example, what percentage of streambank miles needing rehabilitation have been rehabilitated to what extent? What changes have occurred in the watershed outside these projects that contribute to the cumulative effects of this project, both positive and negative? Project results must be assessed so that inferences can be drawn about changes observed in the John Day in the context of changes occurring in the larger region. Project 200301700, Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program, includes a John Day pilot program that should be helpful in this, but is just getting organized. Close cooperation with the M&E project and sharing of results and experiences from this long-running project will maximize the benefits from both.

It is time for a comprehensive review of this project's biological results. One year of funding should provide time for this while continuing ongoing field projects. Future funding should be contingent on completion of a satisfactory document.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1984-021-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Sponsor should complete accomplishments report as called for in ISRP recommendation. Funding in FY08 and 09 contingent upon favorable review by ISRP and Council. See also programmatic recommendation on habitat m&e.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Russ Powell Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Trevor Watson Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Jenna Peterson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Pamela Alley Technical Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration