< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

200002100 - Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon Ladd Marsh WMA and Grande Ronde Subbasin Wetlands

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW)

Budgets: FY07: $95,551 | FY08: $97,650 | FY09: $100,691

Short description: Maintain wetland restoration projects on Ladd Marsh WMA. Identify, prioritize, implement and maintain other potential wetland restoration projects in the Grande Ronde subbasin.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $65,000 | FY08: $65,000 | FY09: $65,000

Comment: 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.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable


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.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable, but at a reduced level

Review group: OSPIT - Blue Mountain

Recommended budgets: FY07: $65,000 | FY08: $65,000 | FY09: $65,000

Comment: OSPIT recommends removing the wetland work on private land and moving to strictly O&M budget. Also recommend removing the work element of pre-acquisition activity.