Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Project Number:
2000-021-00
Title:
Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Summary:
Project Background

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been participating in BPA's wildlife mitigation efforts since the mid 1980s. Since 1991, Oregon wildlife managers have been working together to coordinate the planning, selection, and implementation of BPA-funded wildlife mitigation projects under the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's (NWPCC's) Fish and Wildlife Program as outlined in Sections 7 and 11, specifically measures 7.6, 11.2D, 11.3E, and 11.3F (NWPPC 1995).

The Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area (LMWA) is located 6.9 miles south of La Grande, Oregon in the southwest corner of the Grande Ronde Valley. Before the addition of the project properties, the LMWA consisted of 3,208 acres of grain fields, tree and shrub areas, native prairie, marsh and open water. In addition to being an important staging area for migratory waterfowl, the LMWA serves as nesting area for many species. Over 2,000 ducks and 400 Canada geese are produced each year. The LMWA hosts over 200 species of birds, 40 species of mammals, and 10 species of reptiles and amphibians either as residents or visiting migrants.

The Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions project was approved by the NWPPC in 1998-99. Three parcels known as the Simonis, Wallender and Conley Lake totaling 844 acres were purchased from The Nature Conservancy in 2001. Fiscal year 2002 saw major construction and restoration on the Wallender parcel and part of the Simonis parcel. Restoration on the Simonis property was completed in the winter of 2002-03. Restoration included construction of approximately 30,000 feet of dikes and placement of twenty-three water control structures. Nearly three miles of Ladd Creek were restored to a more natural, meandering channel. Two water control/fish ladders were also installed in Ladd Creek to improve fish passage. Other activities included construction of perimeter fences, seeding uplands and planting shrubs and trees along riparian areas.

A five-year habitat management plan for the project was completed and submitted to BPA. A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan was developed and included in the five-year habitat management plan. Formal monitoring was begun in FY 2002 with the placement of point-count survey locations and photo point locations and development of waterfowl survey routes. Baseline photos were taken at photo points.

This project has protected and enhanced 844 acres of high priority upland, wetland and riparian habitats. Restored seasonal wetlands have begun to produce abundant stands of aquatic plants (e.g., sedges and rushes) that will provide food for water birds. These plant communities also provide habitat for many other species of birds and wetland wildlife. At least some of the wetlands dry out during most years, allowing the natural processes of recycling nutrients to occur, which is important for maintaining wetland system productivity. Restored riparian habitats will provide much improved habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife species, especially neotropical migrants and locally nesting passerine species. Wetland margins are being restored to a tufted hairgrass community and upland areas are being restored to a greasewood/basin wildrye plant community. Restoration efforts will also dramatically improve winter and summer habitat for steelhead, Chinook salmon, and resident fish in Ladd Creek and Catherine Creek. Summer water temperatures will decrease, winter water temperatures will increase, there will be more pools and deep instream habitat areas for anadromous and resident fish, winter rearing habitats will be improved for juvenile steelhead, and there will be improved quality and quantity of water flowing into Catherine Creek from Ladd Creek.

The overall goal of the LMWA Additions mitigation project is to protect existing habitat values and restore degraded values that have occurred as a result of past and current land management practices on lands adjacent to or near the existing LMWA. This Statement of Work (SOW) and associated budget address the maintenance and operation (O&M) and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of enhancements on Wallender, Conley Lake, and Simonis properties. Project Work Elements are outlined below and will be achieved with funds approved by the BPA for the LMWA Additions project. The total estimated Fiscal Year 2008 budget based on the BPA funding decision is $48,000.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2001
Ending FY:
2022
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Grande Ronde 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Crappie, Black
Crappie, White
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Western Brook
Perch, Yellow
Pike, Northern
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Lake
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Description: Page: Cover: Cover photo

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 900 x 600

Description: Page: 8 Figure 1a: Photopoint #1, on the West Simonis Tract. Photograph taken in 2004 (A).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 582 x 437

Description: Page: 8 Figure 1b: Photopoint #1, on the West Simonis Tract. Photograph taken in 2010 (B).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 576 x 432

Description: Page: 8 Figure 1c: Photopoint #1, on the West Simonis Tract. Photograph taken in 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 582 x 437

Description: Page: 9 Figure 2a: Photopoint #4, Ladd Creek at the upper fish ladder. Photograph taken in 2005 (A).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 9 Figure 2b: Photopoint #4, Ladd Creek at the upper fish ladder. Photograph taken in 2010 (B).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 9 Figure 2c: Photopoint #4, Ladd Creek at the upper fish ladder. Photograph taken in 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 10 Figure 3a: Photopoint #15, on the East Simonis Tract. Photograph taken in 2003 (A).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 609 x 406

Description: Page: 10 Figure 3b: Photopoint #15, on the East Simonis Tract. Photographs taken in 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 600 x 900

Description: Page: 11 Figure 4a: Photopoint #9, Ladd Creek. Photograph taken in 2003 (A).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 600 x 400

Description: Page: 11 Figure 4b: Photopoint #9, Ladd Creek. Photograph taken in 2010 (B).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 11 Figure 4c: Photopoint #9, Ladd Creek. Photograph taken in 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P123968

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 1 Cover: Cover photo

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 900 x 600

Description: Page: 8 Figure 1A: Photopoint #1, on the West Simonis Tract. Photographs taken in 2004 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 582 x 437

Description: Page: 8 Figure 1B: Photopoint #1, on the West Simonis Tract. Photographs taken in 2004 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 576 x 432

Description: Page: 8 Figure 1C: Photopoint #1, on the West Simonis Tract. Photographs taken in 2004 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 582 x 437

Description: Page: 9 Figure 2A: Photopoint #4, Ladd Creek at the upper fish ladder. Photographs taken in 2005 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 9 Figure 2B: Photopoint #4, Ladd Creek at the upper fish ladder. Photographs taken in 2005 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 9 Figure 2C: Photopoint #4, Ladd Creek at the upper fish ladder. Photographs taken in 2005 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 10 Figure 3A: Photopoint #15, on the East Simonis Tract. Photographs taken in 2003 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 609 x 406

Description: Page: 10 Figure 3B: Photopoint #15, on the East Simonis Tract. Photographs taken in 2003 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 600 x 900

Description: Page: 11 Figure 4A: Photopoint #9, Ladd Creek. Photographs taken in 2003 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 600 x 400

Description: Page: 11 Figure 4B: Photopoint #9, Ladd Creek. Photographs taken in 2003 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 600 x 450

Description: Page: 11 Figure 4C: Photopoint #9, Ladd Creek. Photographs taken in 2003 (A), 2010 (B) and 2011 (C).

Project: 2000-021-00

Document: P125993

Dimensions: 600 x 450


Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $79,199 From: General FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $5,449 From: General Transfers ODFW 10/2/19 10/02/2019
FY2021 Expense $84,648 From: General FY21 SOY 06/09/2020
FY2021 Expense $3,517 From: General ODFW FY21 Portfolio Transfers 08/07/2020
FY2022 Expense $88,165 From: General FY22 SOY 1st Batch 05/06/2021

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 $174,966 67%
2019 $161,716 67%
2018 $99,766 56%
2017 $84,666 52%
2016 $76,666 49%
2015 $68,666 47%
2014 $69,916 48%
2013 $64,466 50%
2012 $62,713 45%
2011 $59,413 44%
2010
2009 $63,250 47%
2008 $67,500 48%
2007 $65,000 58%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
592 REL 1 SOW Eastern Washington University CULTURAL RES SURVEY/LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MGMT. AREA History $34,274 8/28/2000 - 5/31/2001
BPA-010875 Bonneville Power Administration FY01 Acquisitions Active $330,355 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
4656 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 LADD MARSH Closed $448,942 5/1/2001 - 9/30/2005
25169 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH Closed $51,288 11/4/2005 - 9/30/2006
29442 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH Closed $56,238 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
35446 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH Closed $139,168 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2009
44273 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 200002100 EXP LADD MARSH Closed $73,544 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
49831 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $75,383 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
55039 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $72,516 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
59608 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $62,778 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
63235 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $74,763 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
66854 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $73,423 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
70108 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION Closed $77,725 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
73980 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION 2017 Closed $77,834 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
74313 REL 3 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION 2018 Closed $78,343 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74313 REL 31 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION 2019 Closed $79,199 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74313 REL 56 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION 2020 Closed $82,833 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74313 REL 79 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-021-00 EXP LADD MARSH WILDLIFE MITIGATION 2021 Issued $88,165 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):17
Completed:14
On time:14
Status Reports
Completed:65
On time:31
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
BPA-010875 FY01 Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2000 10/2000 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4656 25169, 29442, 35446, 44273, 49831, 55039, 59608, 63235, 66854, 70108, 73980, 74313 REL 3, 74313 REL 31, 74313 REL 56, 74313 REL 79 2000-021-00 LADD MARSH Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 05/2001 05/2001 Issued 65 135 6 0 5 146 96.58% 0
Project Totals 65 135 6 0 5 146 96.58% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-NPCC-20210312
Project: 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 10/13/2017
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Recommendation: See programmatic Issue B. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications 1-3 in 2018 annual report and final management plan (currently in draft).

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/project-reviews-and-recommendations/2017-wildlife-project-review]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-ISRP-20201105
Project: 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 11/5/2020
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/28/2017
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This project has been successful in establishing and achieving project-wide habitat objectives using a variety of active restoration and management activities. It appears that once these initial project habitat objectives were accomplished, however, some key program elements were discontinued. The key elements included establishing objectives to describe desired outcomes of ongoing management activities, a core monitoring program to evaluate their effectiveness and creating a more formal approach to adaptive management (incorporate active learning to document lessons learned and potentially adjust future management approaches). By restoring these important project elements, the project will be in a better position to continue to provide a range of benefits to fish, wildlife, and the users of the area.

1. Objectives and outcomes

The 2008 Management Plan provided major project goals and specific objectives for the amount and general character of major habitat types. A more thorough explanation of the basis for the desired distribution pattern and relative abundance of Habitat Units on the property would have improved the initial plan and objectives. It is noted in the Draft 2017 Management Plan that by 2011, monitoring had determined that restoration and management had been successful at meeting original habitat and stream restoration objectives and that the Project would transition into one limited to ongoing operations and maintenance.

The current project conducts a variety of activities that are discussed in the Summary Report and Project Management Plans (2008 and 2017 Draft). These include additional land acquisition, continued terrestrial habitat restoration, treatments to control or eradicate nonnative fish and plants, management and upgrading of infrastructure, continued restoration of the Conley tract, and providing a “variety of wildlife oriented recreational and educational activities to the public.” Also, the Summary Report indicates that mechanical treatment is being used to open vegetative cover and “set succession back to provide habitat for a variety of life stages of wildlife” on selected wetlands. The ecological basis for management approaches designed to reverse successional change in vegetation should be described. Current methods are expensive and will need to be applied into the future. Possible alternatives should be evaluated.

Although there are some general goal statements for many of the project’s activities, there are no objectives to describe anticipated end products and desired outcomes. Desired habitat outcomes, for a variety of management activities, need to be described and framed as objectives to allow future evaluation of effectiveness. Time frames for expected accomplishments are also needed. The incorporation of quantifiable objectives having explicit timelines will allow the project to assess its actions and develop management alternatives if needed.

2. Scientific principles and methods

The Summary Report described general activities and methods for the project. It did not identify scientific principles on which the restoration practices were based. The objectives for the Ladd Creek restoration were stated but not related to geomorphic processes or principles that would indicate that a 50:50 pool riffle ratio or C6c channel type are appropriate.

3. Monitoring and evaluation

The Project had an active habitat monitoring program through FY 2011, but monitoring activities were discontinued in 2012 due to a reported lack of funding. The Summary Report notes, that initially, a variety of fish and wildlife monitoring activities took place in the project area to assess response to the original habitat restoration objectives. This work appears to have generally documented achievement of mitigation objectives for major habitat types across the project.

From 2003 through 2011, data indicate that numbers of bird species increased (though no statistical analysis was provided). Photo points were used from 2002 to 2012, as a qualitative indication of habitat change at selected points, but quantitative assessment of the changes was not reported. Numbers of waterfowl observed increased through 2005. It was reported that numbers observed then decreased since 2005, though data were not provided in the Summary Report to support this statement. The proponent suggested the decline was a result of interference of emergent vegetation on visual observations and reported that 1500 to 2000 birds are banded each year. Currently, it is unclear if numbers of waterfowl are declining, remaining constant, or increasing. Temperature monitoring (2002-2006) indicated that restoration had not improved water temperatures. There is no mention of monitoring to document current stream temperatures. Fish monitoring (2003 and 2004), and photo point monitoring (2002-2012) also occurred.

It is noted that monitoring currently is conducted for all habitat types to identify invasive and noxious weeds. There is no information provided summarizing the results of this work. There is no information on any additional monitoring activities or evaluation of results for the project.

Although the 2009 ISRP review found that monitoring was "very complete” for both habitat and biological responses to management and restoration, it was noted in the 2002 review that, “This project should not receive long-term funding without a management plan that includes clear objectives and M&E.” Changes need to occur to reinstate a base monitoring program. Scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation would strengthen future planning and management. However, given the limited budget and past reductions in funding, the project will need to develop a strategic plan for securing resources for evaluation and monitoring. Several options appear to be worth consideration. The project could work with regional agencies to make the property available as part of larger regional studies. It could work with local universities (i.e., Eastern Oregon University) to encourage the use of their site by graduate students or field classes. It could also partner with citizen science programs in the region, such as Ducks Unlimited or Trout Unlimited. The managers know their sites very well and could consider using their education and outreach efforts to create ongoing partnerships to provide evaluations of the status and trends for meeting critical objectives, effectiveness of their management actions, and identification of possible future challenges.

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management

It is apparent that there is a good deal of hard work and sound management occurring in the Ladd Marsh project. Past monitoring and evaluation has shown that original terrestrial and aquatic restoration objectives were accomplished by around 2010. It is also noted that current management is primarily focused on operation of the area and maintenance of those initial target conditions. The original habitat objectives have not been re-evaluated for more than a decade. The ISRP would like to see such a re-evaluation of initial objectives incorporated into the current revision of the Management Plan which is currently in draft form. The proponents continue to work with cooperators to restore wetland habitat in a playa on the Conley Lake tract. It appears that this wetland still has not been restored. Future actions to accomplish this objective would be strengthened by a more thorough assessment of the factors preventing restoration from occurring. Additionally, a discussion of potential alternatives to the current, labor intensive program to maintain early seral stages of wetland succession should be considered. Current approaches require continuous investment to maintain desired conditions. Less intensive management interventions should be evaluated for possible use in future management plan revisions. A less time consuming and expensive alternative to the current approach might be identified and tested on selected areas.

Current ongoing activities, described for the project, include an active education and outreach program, continued restoration activities planned for the near future on the Conley Lake tract, management of invasive plant species, infrastructure maintenance and replacement, and development of a revised management plan which is currently in draft form. The draft Management Plan, describes various challenges but lacks additional information on potential alternatives and timeframes for different management approaches or desired future condition. These should be addressed. Desired conditions should be framed as quantitative objective statements with a time frame for their accomplishment. Problem assessment, using quantitative objective statements, and identification of potential future alternative management approaches based on effectiveness of observed outcomes (i.e., adaptive management) would also serve to strengthen the management plan.

From materials provided, it appears that the project is continuing in a “maintenance” mode. Annual reports for the last three years use almost identical narratives describing work and accomplishments from year to year. Establishment of meaningful project objectives and a base monitoring program will encourage adaptive management and active learning. This will provide for increased efficiency and effectiveness in continuing a high level of resource and user benefits for the project. Proponents are encouraged to make time, in a busy schedule, to invest in these measures.

Qualification #1 - Additional information needed in 2018 Annual Report
The ISRP requests that the proponents provide the following additional information in the 2018 annual report for the project or in the final Habitat Management Plan which is currently in draft form. 1. Quantitative objectives, with an expected time frame for achieving outcomes for major project activities planned for the next 5 years. 2. Description of monitoring actions that will be used to track progress on objectives. 3. Description of an adaptive management process linked to the quantifiable objectives and timelines.
Documentation Links:
Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Cost savings to be determined pending outcome of litigation.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The sponsors should be complimented for the partnership and outreach aspects of the project and their use of a multidisciplinary approach. With a few exceptions the project is on track and meeting objectives. M&E data collected in the past are shown. Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The justification for the project is described well in the proposal. The significance of the additions to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area is demonstrated by the close alignment with subbasin priorities and is amply substantiated by the presentation of some monitoring data. This project is obviously well coordinated with the Ladd Marsh program but also compliments many other BPA-funded efforts in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The sponsors have engaged a wide variety of additional organizations ranging from other ODFW biologists to a nearby city (La Grande) to local school groups, and the relationships among the groups are working well.

2. Project History and Results
The proposal provides not only a chronology of activities since project inception in 1998 but also provides an indication of biological response to project implementation by summarizing some of the monitoring data that has been collected. Improvements in habitat condition and the response of wildlife populations to these changes clearly illustrate the effectiveness of the restoration measures that have been implemented at the project site. Activities detailed include purchases, easements, dikes, stream channel construction, fish ladder, planting shrubs and native grasses, weed control, and water management. Results have generally been positive - some invasive species such as reed canary grass have out-competed native vegetation in some areas but the sponsors are confident their management methods will reverse this trend.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for the project. The activities to be supported by this proposal are largely maintenance of habitat improvements that have been implemented over the last decade. The methods have been successful to date, as indicated by monitoring data. The manner in which this section was organized required a considerable amount of repetition of work elements and methods. Some streamlining of the text would have made review of the proposal a bit easier. Objectives include: install nest structures; control water levels and vegetation; install perimeter fencing; compile and analyze data already collected; and conduct vegetation and wildlife surveys.

4. M&E
The M&E program for this project is very complete. Both habitat condition as well as population responses to the restoration actions are being monitored. Despite the authors’ claim that resources are insufficient to implement a comprehensive monitoring strategy, they are conducting a very thorough assessment of project effectiveness. In addition, it is quite evident from the discussions in this proposal that the monitoring results are being used to inform management decisions.

The photo points are producing good qualitative data but should be combined with vegetation measurements wherever possible.

Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer. Monitoring of this work will be ODFW’s responsibility. The proposal indicates that the current fish trap has not been operated since 2004 due to some design problems. However, the trap worked well enough to establish the presence of Chinook fry and an adult bull trout in the project area. The fact that these key fish species did use the new channel of Ladd Creek is important information. The water temperature monitoring data is important, although the data might be related to thermal tolerances of fish and turtles for more effective interpretation. Some information on seasonal patterns of use and the survival and growth of the fish at this site would also have been very useful. Improvements to the fish trap, as suggested in this proposal, would help improve the understanding of fish response to the project. In view of the fact that a proposal has been submitted to restore habitat on six miles of Ladd
Creek upstream from the project location, a more intensive monitoring effort for fish at the project site and upstream becomes even more important. Much of this type of monitoring is outside the primary focus of the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions Project. The sponsors should work with those proposing or conducting fish habitat restoration work in the subbasin to ensure that sufficient monitoring resources are directed towards the fish habitat restoration efforts on Ladd Creek.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
The sponsors should be complimented for the partnership and outreach aspects of the project and their use of a multidisciplinary approach. With a few exceptions the project is on track and meeting objectives. M&E data collected in the past are shown. Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The justification for the project is described well in the proposal. The significance of the additions to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area is demonstrated by the close alignment with subbasin priorities and is amply substantiated by the presentation of some monitoring data. This project is obviously well coordinated with the Ladd Marsh program but also compliments many other BPA-funded efforts in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The sponsors have engaged a wide variety of additional organizations ranging from other ODFW biologists to a nearby city (La Grande) to local school groups, and the relationships among the groups are working well.

2. Project History and Results
The proposal provides not only a chronology of activities since project inception in 1998 but also provides an indication of biological response to project implementation by summarizing some of the monitoring data that has been collected. Improvements in habitat condition and the response of wildlife populations to these changes clearly illustrate the effectiveness of the restoration measures that have been implemented at the project site. Activities detailed include purchases, easements, dikes, stream channel construction, fish ladder, planting shrubs and native grasses, weed control, and water management. Results have generally been positive - some invasive species such as reed canary grass have out-competed native vegetation in some areas but the sponsors are confident their management methods will reverse this trend.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for the project. The activities to be supported by this proposal are largely maintenance of habitat improvements that have been implemented over the last decade. The methods have been successful to date, as indicated by monitoring data. The manner in which this section was organized required a considerable amount of repetition of work elements and methods. Some streamlining of the text would have made review of the proposal a bit easier. Objectives include: install nest structures; control water levels and vegetation; install perimeter fencing; compile and analyze data already collected; and conduct vegetation and wildlife surveys.

4. M&E
The M&E program for this project is very complete. Both habitat condition as well as population responses to the restoration actions are being monitored. Despite the authors’ claim that resources are insufficient to implement a comprehensive monitoring strategy, they are conducting a very thorough assessment of project effectiveness. In addition, it is quite evident from the discussions in this proposal that the monitoring results are being used to inform management decisions.

The photo points are producing good qualitative data but should be combined with vegetation measurements wherever possible.

Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer. Monitoring of this work will be ODFW’s responsibility. The proposal indicates that the current fish trap has not been operated since 2004 due to some design problems. However, the trap worked well enough to establish the presence of Chinook fry and an adult bull trout in the project area. The fact that these key fish species did use the new channel of Ladd Creek is important information. The water temperature monitoring data is important, although the data might be related to thermal tolerances of fish and turtles for more effective interpretation. Some information on seasonal patterns of use and the survival and growth of the fish at this site would also have been very useful. Improvements to the fish trap, as suggested in this proposal, would help improve the understanding of fish response to the project. In view of the fact that a proposal has been submitted to restore habitat on six miles of Ladd
Creek upstream from the project location, a more intensive monitoring effort for fish at the project site and upstream becomes even more important. Much of this type of monitoring is outside the primary focus of the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions Project. The sponsors should work with those proposing or conducting fish habitat restoration work in the subbasin to ensure that sufficient monitoring resources are directed towards the fish habitat restoration efforts on Ladd Creek.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Budget reduction reflects the removal of work elements associated with wetland work on private land, pre-acquisition activity and moving to strictly O&M budget. Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2000-021-00 - Ladd Marsh Wildlife Mitigation
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The response made clear that the project has sources of relevant monitoring data, and it provided some descriptive detail that evidences project progress. Although the response states that monitoring must be limited to largely descriptive/qualitative studies, the activities that are described appear to include many quantitative data, and descriptive/qualitative data can be perfectly adequate to evaluate some biological objectives (e.g., use of photopoints). Photopoints are useful in evaluation, and some census data are shown. This project has shown improvement in monitoring and evaluation over the years, and future proposals should continue to provide improved description of the evaluation of the project's progress, using relevant monitoring information

The ISRP emphasizes that the proponents need to analyze the information they have gathered and are continuing to gather, not create an expensive monitoring program. With this project, there is no necessary conflict between the ISRP and NPCC guidance on project level M&E. There is no need to spend more than 5% of the project budget to produce relevant analyzed monitoring data that index project progress. Projects are required, under review criteria, to provide adequate monitoring and evaluation, and it appears that what this project has been doing could readily address that requirement. There is no apparent need for expanded experimental monitoring; there simply is a need to analyze and think about the information that is available. Further analysis and reporting of relevant data would likely not take as much as two weeks, especially if some analyses are already included in Annual Reports, as the response indicates. In future reports, the results of some data analysis should be shown and their interpretation described to indicate what the project proponents understand the data to tell them about the progress and success of their project; the ISRP should not be referred to annual M&E reports to see what those data show.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2000-021-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M on BPA-funded wildlife mitigation site; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2000-021-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2000-021-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Dave Larson (Inactive) Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Cathy Nowak (Inactive) Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Paul (CBFWF) Ashley (Inactive) Interested Party Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Daniel Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Tracy Hauser Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration