2010 Wildlife project review

Development and validation of the Operational Loss Assessment tool are technically and scientifically justified. Although long and detailed, this is an outstanding proposal that continues to model how research can be usefully integrated into more immediate program goals. This project is not only benefiting the subbasin but the Program overall by demonstrating what could be achieved elsewhere in terms of interdisciplinary value, program integration, and community involvement, all to benefit fish and wildlife. There is an excellent discussion of problems with HSI/HEP relative to interactions and subjective assessment of variables. This promises a more usable model for accounting and effectiveness monitoring based on current science, as a future alternative to HEP. This model might be considered for adaptation/application in the Willamette Valley where HEP has been particularly problematic and similar regional integration exists. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The development of a process to determine habitat and wildlife resource losses related to dam operations is a very worthwhile objective, and the approach being used by the sponsors is technically sound. Success in developing a tool that can be applied at other locations in the Columbia Basin will make a significant contribution to the region. The clear relationship to the subbasin plan, degree of integration with other regional efforts and Program-funded projects is exemplary. Continuing community involvement following subbasin planning is a wise investment. Table D-1 concisely demonstrates relationships among projects. In some ways it seems to be premature to request funding for property acquisition and restoration projects before the Operational Loss Assessment (OLA) methodology has been completed. 2. Project History and Results The project history is thoroughly described, and it is evident that significant progress has been made towards developing a comprehensive Operational Loss Assessment tool. They have assembled a 17-member research design and review team, started avian point counts; evaluated hydrologic data before and after the dam; continued avian and invertebrate point counts; used remote sensing land classifications; validated avian data 2002-2007; assessed sampling design and intensity; evaluated vegetation hydraulic model; and assessed sample size and power of invertebrate sampling in 2008. Publications and presentations are useful results that add scientific credibility. The timeline makes flow from history to future clear. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The project has four phases: (1) operational loss assessment, (2) habitat and population protection, (3) mitigation, and (4) restoration. It is currently in phase 1 with objectives to collect and refine monitoring data based upon statistical needs, to document methodologies and analyses, to develop an Operational Loss Framework Manual in 2010- 2012, and to develop an Index of Ecological Integrity. The objectives, work elements, and methods for development of the OLA process appear to be appropriate. Assessing sample size and power of data collection protocols add rigor and credibility to the data and their use in model development. The centralized database is an advantage. References cite current efforts of project participants and others active in the fields of science involved. There were several work elements for which additional information would be useful. The method by which the avian and invertebrate IBIs will be combined into a terrestrial IBI was not fully explained. Similarly, the method by which the IHA, IFA, IVA, T-IBI, A-IBI and any other information sources will be combined into an overall IEA was only described briefly. The pie-chart diagrams used to display the deviation from historical function for the IFA are one possible method for combining metrics into an IEA. This would indicate which components were most severely degraded but how would this be interpreted in terms of establishing restoration priorities? More description of possible approaches to developing the IEA would provide a better idea how difficult this final step is likely to be. Validation of many model parts will be occurring during 2010 and 2011. Therefore, determination of the value of this approach for informing restoration planning processes will not be complete until late 2011 or 2012. Is there a plan for external review of results at this point? 4. M&E The OLA development is essentially a research effort. A large proportion of the proposal could be considered as RM&E, and most of these elements are very well done. The model development and database are a foundation for future M&E. A comprehensive M&E plan will be developed as a part of the restoration plan that will be based on OLA results. Evaluation of the M&E approach in the restoration plan cannot occur until that time.

Development and validation of the Operational Loss Assessment tool are technically and scientifically justified. Although long and detailed, this is an outstanding proposal that continues to model how research can be usefully integrated into more immediate program goals. This project is not only benefiting the subbasin but the Program overall by demonstrating what could be achieved elsewhere in terms of interdisciplinary value, program integration, and community involvement, all to benefit fish and wildlife. There is an excellent discussion of problems with HSI/HEP relative to interactions and subjective assessment of variables. This promises a more usable model for accounting and effectiveness monitoring based on current science, as a future alternative to HEP. This model might be considered for adaptation/application in the Willamette Valley where HEP has been particularly problematic and similar regional integration exists. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The development of a process to determine habitat and wildlife resource losses related to dam operations is a very worthwhile objective, and the approach being used by the sponsors is technically sound. Success in developing a tool that can be applied at other locations in the Columbia Basin will make a significant contribution to the region. The clear relationship to the subbasin plan, degree of integration with other regional efforts and Program-funded projects is exemplary. Continuing community involvement following subbasin planning is a wise investment. Table D-1 concisely demonstrates relationships among projects. In some ways it seems to be premature to request funding for property acquisition and restoration projects before the Operational Loss Assessment (OLA) methodology has been completed. 2. Project History and Results The project history is thoroughly described, and it is evident that significant progress has been made towards developing a comprehensive Operational Loss Assessment tool. They have assembled a 17-member research design and review team, started avian point counts; evaluated hydrologic data before and after the dam; continued avian and invertebrate point counts; used remote sensing land classifications; validated avian data 2002-2007; assessed sampling design and intensity; evaluated vegetation hydraulic model; and assessed sample size and power of invertebrate sampling in 2008. Publications and presentations are useful results that add scientific credibility. The timeline makes flow from history to future clear. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The project has four phases: (1) operational loss assessment, (2) habitat and population protection, (3) mitigation, and (4) restoration. It is currently in phase 1 with objectives to collect and refine monitoring data based upon statistical needs, to document methodologies and analyses, to develop an Operational Loss Framework Manual in 2010- 2012, and to develop an Index of Ecological Integrity. The objectives, work elements, and methods for development of the OLA process appear to be appropriate. Assessing sample size and power of data collection protocols add rigor and credibility to the data and their use in model development. The centralized database is an advantage. References cite current efforts of project participants and others active in the fields of science involved. There were several work elements for which additional information would be useful. The method by which the avian and invertebrate IBIs will be combined into a terrestrial IBI was not fully explained. Similarly, the method by which the IHA, IFA, IVA, T-IBI, A-IBI and any other information sources will be combined into an overall IEA was only described briefly. The pie-chart diagrams used to display the deviation from historical function for the IFA are one possible method for combining metrics into an IEA. This would indicate which components were most severely degraded but how would this be interpreted in terms of establishing restoration priorities? More description of possible approaches to developing the IEA would provide a better idea how difficult this final step is likely to be. Validation of many model parts will be occurring during 2010 and 2011. Therefore, determination of the value of this approach for informing restoration planning processes will not be complete until late 2011 or 2012. Is there a plan for external review of results at this point? 4. M&E The OLA development is essentially a research effort. A large proportion of the proposal could be considered as RM&E, and most of these elements are very well done. The model development and database are a foundation for future M&E. A comprehensive M&E plan will be developed as a part of the restoration plan that will be based on OLA results. Evaluation of the M&E approach in the restoration plan cannot occur until that time.