2010 Wildlife project review

The protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. This project is one of the few that includes efforts to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration. The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented (see below). 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The project sponsors provide a strong technical justification for this project. Habitat types represented on the project area, including grasslands and riparian wetlands, are poorly represented in the Walla Walla Subbasin as a whole due to human activities. Very few of the remaining areas that do support these habitat types are protected. Therefore, the protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. There was a bit of confusion regarding the priority of the project streams for steelhead and Chinook in the Technical Justification section. The authors indicate that stream reaches in the project area were prioritized as 12th for steelhead and 15th for Chinook out of 47 stream reaches in the subbasin (page 2 of narrative). But in the following sentence they indicate that the priority ratings were 10th for steelhead and 3rd for Chinook. Either rating establishes the significance of the aquatic habitats at the Rainwater project area, but this seeming discrepancy should be resolved. The Rainwater Wildlife Area Project is closely linked with other projects in the subbasin and takes advantage of some subbasin-scale monitoring programs to generate information relevant to the effectiveness of the restoration measures being implemented at Rainwater. In particular, the linkage with the Walla Walla Basin Natural Fish Production and Monitoring and Evaluation Project provides very complete information on the response of salmonid fishes to restoration at the Rainwater Wildlife Area. 2. Project History and Results Significant progress has been made in expanding and enhancing habitat at the Rainwater Project Area since its establishment in 1998. The evolution of the project since its inception is clearly presented in this section. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The Objectives, Work Elements and Methods are appropriate for this project. Most activities are focused on the maintenance of the area and implementation of new habitat enhancement measures (especially related to the improvement of upland habitats). But the objectives and methods for the M&E program also are well designed. A large part of the work is devoted to project management and administration. The sponsors should continue to investigate new techniques to accomplish, reduce, or eliminate maintenance and administrative tasks over the long term. Note that in work element 11, methods of biological monitoring and evaluation, were not provided. 4. M&E The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. HEP measurements are augmented with supplemental measurements of habitat and vegetation response to restoration treatments, constituting effectiveness monitoring. These data should provide a relatively good picture of changes in habitat quality over time. In addition, this project is one of the few that includes an effort to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration. There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented. 1) Stream habitat surveys were conducted in 1999-2000 but have not been repeated. A new habitat survey is planned for 2009-2010. More frequent habitat assessments would provide a more sensitive gauge of habitat response to restoration efforts. These surveys do not have to be annual but they should be repeated at least every five years and after major disturbance events. A repeat survey after the 2006 fire would have been informative. 2) Annual monitoring of juvenile fish populations is an M&E element that is very rarely included in project M&E plans. Its inclusion in this project is a real strength of the M&E effort for aquatic habitats. The inclusion of juvenile index sites outside the project area in 2004 will provide some context for interpreting annual changes in fish abundance at the index sites in the project area. However, it appears that the index sites are not sampled consistently. The data presented in Table 4 indicates that some index sites within the project area are sampled in one year and a different set sampled the next year. These data also suggest that the "control" reaches outside the project area were only sampled in 2004. The primary purpose for collecting these data is to determine if there is a temporal trend in fish populations. Therefore, the same set of reaches should be sampled each year (or on some consistent schedule) and the "control" reaches should be sampled on this same schedule. It is not noted in the narrative whether habitat restoration projects have been implemented at any of the juvenile abundance index sites. If not, one or two sites where projects have been implemented should be added.

The protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. This project is one of the few that includes efforts to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration. The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented (see below). 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The project sponsors provide a strong technical justification for this project. Habitat types represented on the project area, including grasslands and riparian wetlands, are poorly represented in the Walla Walla Subbasin as a whole due to human activities. Very few of the remaining areas that do support these habitat types are protected. Therefore, the protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. There was a bit of confusion regarding the priority of the project streams for steelhead and Chinook in the Technical Justification section. The authors indicate that stream reaches in the project area were prioritized as 12th for steelhead and 15th for Chinook out of 47 stream reaches in the subbasin (page 2 of narrative). But in the following sentence they indicate that the priority ratings were 10th for steelhead and 3rd for Chinook. Either rating establishes the significance of the aquatic habitats at the Rainwater project area, but this seeming discrepancy should be resolved. The Rainwater Wildlife Area Project is closely linked with other projects in the subbasin and takes advantage of some subbasin-scale monitoring programs to generate information relevant to the effectiveness of the restoration measures being implemented at Rainwater. In particular, the linkage with the Walla Walla Basin Natural Fish Production and Monitoring and Evaluation Project provides very complete information on the response of salmonid fishes to restoration at the Rainwater Wildlife Area. 2. Project History and Results Significant progress has been made in expanding and enhancing habitat at the Rainwater Project Area since its establishment in 1998. The evolution of the project since its inception is clearly presented in this section. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The Objectives, Work Elements and Methods are appropriate for this project. Most activities are focused on the maintenance of the area and implementation of new habitat enhancement measures (especially related to the improvement of upland habitats). But the objectives and methods for the M&E program also are well designed. A large part of the work is devoted to project management and administration. The sponsors should continue to investigate new techniques to accomplish, reduce, or eliminate maintenance and administrative tasks over the long term. Note that in work element 11, methods of biological monitoring and evaluation, were not provided. 4. M&E The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. HEP measurements are augmented with supplemental measurements of habitat and vegetation response to restoration treatments, constituting effectiveness monitoring. These data should provide a relatively good picture of changes in habitat quality over time. In addition, this project is one of the few that includes an effort to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration. There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented. 1) Stream habitat surveys were conducted in 1999-2000 but have not been repeated. A new habitat survey is planned for 2009-2010. More frequent habitat assessments would provide a more sensitive gauge of habitat response to restoration efforts. These surveys do not have to be annual but they should be repeated at least every 5 years and after major disturbance events. A repeat survey after the 2006 fire would have been informative. 2) Annual monitoring of juvenile fish populations is an M&E element that is very rarely included in project M&E plans. Its inclusion in this project is a real strength of the M&E effort for aquatic habitats. The inclusion of juvenile index sites outside the project area in 2004 will provide some context for interpreting annual changes in fish abundance at the index sites in the project area. However, it appears that the index sites are not sampled consistently. The data presented in Table 4 indicates that some index sites within the project area are sampled in one year and a different set sampled the next year. These data also suggest that the "control" reaches outside the project area were only sampled in 2004. The primary purpose for collecting these data is to determine if there is a temporal trend in fish populations. Therefore, the same set of reaches should be sampled each year (or on some consistent schedule) and the "control" reaches should be sampled on this same schedule. It is not noted in the narrative whether habitat restoration projects have been implemented at any of the juvenile abundance index sites. If not, one or two sites where projects have been implemented should be added.