2010 Wildlife project review

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.

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.