Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1984-025-00 - Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Improvement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1984-025-00 - Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Improvement
Project Number:
1984-025-00
Title:
Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Improvement
Summary:
ODFW Grande Ronde Basin Fish Habitat Improvement Project, FY2009 Summary

This project continues the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's efforts to restore the riparian and instream habitats in the Blue Mountain Province as mitigation for fisheries losses resulting from development of the federal Columbia River Power System. The project focuses on the restoration of the habitats utilized by the ESA listed Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Snake River Summer Steelhead, but benefits many other species of fish and wildlife.

Since the initiation of this project in 1984, a total of 53 projects have been completed along 84.9 miles of stream, restoring 3,564 acres of riparian and instream habitat. Restoration efforts have focused on the Joseph Creek, Wallowa River and Upper Grande Ronde River systems based on recommendations of agencies, tribes and the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program. Staff of this project works closely with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program (GRMWP) who provides additional basin-wide funding, and project review and prioritization of individual projects. This project frequently works in partnership with other agencies including CTUIR, NRCS, ODOT, ODF, USFWS, USFS, NOAA, USWCD and others. The results of these restoration efforts have shown improving conditions in project areas for salmon, steelhead and other native fishes. An in depth summary of the project history, goals and objectives, summaries of individual project accomplishments, and overall results was recently completed by project staff. The summary report for 1984-2007 can be found at:

http://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=P107898
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1984
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Grande Ronde 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, Western Brook
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Crappie, Black
OBSOLETE-Crappie, White
OBSOLETE-Perch, Yellow
OBSOLETE-Pike, Northern
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Trout, Lake
Other Resident
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
FCRPS 2008 – view list of

Tributary Habitat Implementation 2007 to 2009,
Tributary Habitat Implementation 2010 to 2018

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $457,675 $457,675 $436,675 $374,293 $452,607

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $457,675 $436,675 $374,293 $452,607
FY2017 (Current) $457,675 $457,675 $457,675 $520,057 $259,493

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $457,675 $457,675 $520,057 $259,493
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 28-Feb-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $457,675 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $457,675 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 31 %
FY2015 6 %
FY2014 26 %
FY2013 47 %
FY2012 13 %
FY2011 5 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 26 %
FY2008 33 %
FY2007 19 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Oregon Department Of Fish and Wildlife $18,260
FY2015 US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) $10,700
FY2016 Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board $202,876

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
71935 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1984-025-00 EXP GRANDE RONDE FISH HABITAT IMPROVEMENT Issued $436,675 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:11
On time:11
Status Reports
Completed:47
On time:22
Avg Days Late:18

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
4338 22142, 27222, 32053, 37261, 41677, 41904, 52483, 56506, 60625, 65423, 68693, 71935, 75277 1984-025-00 JOSEPH CREEK, GRANDE RONDE RIVER, OREGON Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/2001 03/2001 Signature 47 225 0 0 60 285 78.95% 0
Project Totals 47 225 0 0 60 285 78.95% 0


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1984-025-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1984-025-00 - Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Improvement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1984-025-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The goal of this project is to restore riparian and instream habitats to benefit recovery of ESA listed Grand Ronde River Chinook, summer steelhead, and bull trout. Habitat degradation has been a major in-basin factor contributing to the decline of these species. The project is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program, NOAA-Fisheries Draft Recovery Plan, Oregon’s Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, and the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan.

The project has a long and productive relationship with local partners and, thereby, is significant to regional programs. The sponsors select project locations opportunistically but also strategically, focusing their work in specific priority areas of the subbasin. The proposed activities appear to be well-coordinated with restoration actions being proposed by others in the subbasin. The sponsors have the technical background and experience necessary to successfully complete the individual projects.

The Objectives, in a general sense, are appropriate and adequately address the major factors thought to be limiting salmon populations in the Grande Ronde. In several objectives, the sponsors propose to restore habitat as close as possible to “historic conditions.” As the objectives are structured, historic conditions seem to serve as a benchmark or goal against which progress will be evaluated. In a conceptual sense this seems reasonable, but the sponsors provide no information about what historic conditions were, how they were determined, and how they were quantified. Is it possible to develop a quantitative goal in terms of habitat structure and process rather than something like the number of miles of fences to be constructed so that tangible progress toward the goal can be evaluated? Perhaps the sponsors should consider using the Minam and Wenaha Rivers, where habitat is relatively intact, as reference streams to gage how their recovery efforts are progressing.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

This project has been ongoing since 1984, and its accomplishments in implementing restoration actions are substantial. The sponsors provided a link to PISCES where a report synthesizing results related to project planning, implementation, activities undertaken, and RM&E from 1984-2007 was given. Results from 2008 were presented in the proposal. While the sponsors appear to have put more effort in monitoring relative to other habitat enhancement projects in the region, effectiveness monitoring for fish responses remains sporadic and, while some results indicate positive responses of habitat to enhancement actions, the results to date of the physical enhancement actions appear to be equivocal or neutral in many cases. The proposal could be improved if the sponsors provided recovery goals for fish and some indication of how, at this point, the habitat work may be contributing to recovery.

It would have been helpful if the sponsors identified major spawning and rearing areas and the locations and types of projects in these areas. The sponsors could have done a better job of discussing how on-the-ground habitat enhancement efforts tie in with and are validated and aided by the excellent research record out of this office.

While learning is occurring as experience accumulates on the best habitat enhancement approaches, adaptive management is not being implemented as intended when the concept was originally proposed. Each restoration action or a collection of actions needs hypotheses or quantitative goals, a timetable for a response, and comparisons to reference sites rather than only before-after comparisons. Fish populations are dynamic, and there are many influences on their abundance, hence the need for reference sites. Quantitative hypotheses/goals and timetables allow evaluation of the influence of habitat enhancement actions on fish. The discussion of adaptive management was interesting and useful but was not the most efficient form of learning.

Evaluation of Results

This project has implemented an impressive number of projects over its 29 year history. The sponsors completed a report synthesizing information on its habitat enhancement projects including results from its monitoring program from the inception of the project to 2007. It is clear from this report and the current proposal that the project has continued to improve its prioritization process and enhancement techniques in keeping with advances in the field of habitat restoration.

The sponsors have developed a viable RM&E program with updated sampling protocols based on CHaMP. The ISRP encourages the sponsors to continue and to expand the RM&E program to better evaluate fish responses to habitat enhancement. The Minam and Wenaha rivers in the Grande Ronde subbasin can possibly serve as useful reference streams to help evaluate whether fish are responding positively to habitat restoration actions.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Project relationships are a strong point of this project as has been noted in previous ISRP reviews. The sponsors have worked collaboratively with several state and tribal entities.

The sponsors discussed possible impacts of climate change and feel that their work will be able to detect changes induced by climate change, and the enhancement actions they are undertaking may help ameliorate these changes. Again, using the Minam and Wenaha as reference streams may help detect any climate induced changes in habitat and fish populations.

Climate change is not an emerging limiting factor; it is an existing factor. Fortunately, the sponsors are proposing to address it through better riparian protection and rehabilitation as well as other actions. Climate change began in the region about 1950 and this “phase” of loss of late summer snowpack is thought to have its full effect around 2030. There are new modeling platforms available that the sponsors may wish to examine that give insights into future stream conditions. These modeling platforms may help guide restoration actions.

Other emerging limiting factors, or just limiting factors, that received little attention in the proposal include non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals. How will the proposed restoration actions be affected by these factors? Or, how can the restoration actions help mitigate some of their ecological effects?

The ISRP was pleased to see an emphasis on winter icing conditions. Most projects ignore this very important ecological driver of stream communities.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables for each objective are for the most part quantitative and thereby allow for an eventual evaluation of effectiveness. All the deliverables, work elements, metrics and methods seem appropriate, with a couple specific exceptions:

DELV-16: It would be very useful to have data on condition factors of juvenile salmonids by site and over time. The ISRP suggests that this be added to the parameters measured.

DELV-18: How is local capacity building accomplished? For example, are there internships available for students? Further, can capacity building and local responsibility be improved by instituting a citizen science program?

The monitoring program appears to be adequate within the basin, but perhaps not tied closely enough with this project. The sponsors appear to have kept up to date on data analysis. Metrics and methods of the RM&E program are based on Oregon’s Aquatic Inventory protocol as well as EMAP and CHaMP, adapted for the Grande Ronde basin. These protocols are well established and should provide an adequate basis for Grand Ronde habitat monitoring.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The protocols and methods were adequately described in MonitoringMethods.org.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

This is a strong proposal. The project has an impressive record of accomplishments and is an effective habitat improvement program. The sponsors are to be especially commended for their efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the projects. They could be providing leadership for some of the other local projects that are struggling to establish comprehensive, integrative, and successful programs. The ISRP encourages the sponsors to publish their results in refereed journals.

The following qualifications should be addressed during contracting or in future proposals and reports:

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Provide an Adaptive Management process that leads to more effective learning about implemented projects.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
Describe in more detail how restoration actions will help mitigate the ecological consequences of non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The goal of this project is to restore riparian and instream habitats to benefit recovery of ESA listed Grand Ronde River Chinook, summer steelhead, and bull trout. Habitat degradation has been a major in-basin factor contributing to the decline of these species. The project is consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program, NOAA-Fisheries Draft Recovery Plan, Oregon’s Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, and the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan.

The project has a long and productive relationship with local partners and, thereby, is significant to regional programs. The sponsors select project locations opportunistically but also strategically, focusing their work in specific priority areas of the subbasin. The proposed activities appear to be well-coordinated with restoration actions being proposed by others in the subbasin. The sponsors have the technical background and experience necessary to successfully complete the individual projects.

The Objectives, in a general sense, are appropriate and adequately address the major factors thought to be limiting salmon populations in the Grande Ronde. In several objectives, the sponsors propose to restore habitat as close as possible to “historic conditions.” As the objectives are structured, historic conditions seem to serve as a benchmark or goal against which progress will be evaluated. In a conceptual sense this seems reasonable, but the sponsors provide no information about what historic conditions were, how they were determined, and how they were quantified. Is it possible to develop a quantitative goal in terms of habitat structure and process rather than something like the number of miles of fences to be constructed so that tangible progress toward the goal can be evaluated? Perhaps the sponsors should consider using the Minam and Wenaha Rivers, where habitat is relatively intact, as reference streams to gage how their recovery efforts are progressing.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

This project has been ongoing since 1984, and its accomplishments in implementing restoration actions are substantial. The sponsors provided a link to PISCES where a report synthesizing results related to project planning, implementation, activities undertaken, and RM&E from 1984-2007 was given. Results from 2008 were presented in the proposal. While the sponsors appear to have put more effort in monitoring relative to other habitat enhancement projects in the region, effectiveness monitoring for fish responses remains sporadic and, while some results indicate positive responses of habitat to enhancement actions, the results to date of the physical enhancement actions appear to be equivocal or neutral in many cases. The proposal could be improved if the sponsors provided recovery goals for fish and some indication of how, at this point, the habitat work may be contributing to recovery.

It would have been helpful if the sponsors identified major spawning and rearing areas and the locations and types of projects in these areas. The sponsors could have done a better job of discussing how on-the-ground habitat enhancement efforts tie in with and are validated and aided by the excellent research record out of this office.

While learning is occurring as experience accumulates on the best habitat enhancement approaches, adaptive management is not being implemented as intended when the concept was originally proposed. Each restoration action or a collection of actions needs hypotheses or quantitative goals, a timetable for a response, and comparisons to reference sites rather than only before-after comparisons. Fish populations are dynamic, and there are many influences on their abundance, hence the need for reference sites. Quantitative hypotheses/goals and timetables allow evaluation of the influence of habitat enhancement actions on fish. The discussion of adaptive management was interesting and useful but was not the most efficient form of learning.

Evaluation of Results

This project has implemented an impressive number of projects over its 29 year history. The sponsors completed a report synthesizing information on its habitat enhancement projects including results from its monitoring program from the inception of the project to 2007. It is clear from this report and the current proposal that the project has continued to improve its prioritization process and enhancement techniques in keeping with advances in the field of habitat restoration.

The sponsors have developed a viable RM&E program with updated sampling protocols based on CHaMP. The ISRP encourages the sponsors to continue and to expand the RM&E program to better evaluate fish responses to habitat enhancement. The Minam and Wenaha rivers in the Grande Ronde subbasin can possibly serve as useful reference streams to help evaluate whether fish are responding positively to habitat restoration actions.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Project relationships are a strong point of this project as has been noted in previous ISRP reviews. The sponsors have worked collaboratively with several state and tribal entities.

The sponsors discussed possible impacts of climate change and feel that their work will be able to detect changes induced by climate change, and the enhancement actions they are undertaking may help ameliorate these changes. Again, using the Minam and Wenaha as reference streams may help detect any climate induced changes in habitat and fish populations.

Climate change is not an emerging limiting factor; it is an existing factor. Fortunately, the sponsors are proposing to address it through better riparian protection and rehabilitation as well as other actions. Climate change began in the region about 1950 and this “phase” of loss of late summer snowpack is thought to have its full effect around 2030. There are new modeling platforms available that the sponsors may wish to examine that give insights into future stream conditions. These modeling platforms may help guide restoration actions.

Other emerging limiting factors, or just limiting factors, that received little attention in the proposal include non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals. How will the proposed restoration actions be affected by these factors? Or, how can the restoration actions help mitigate some of their ecological effects?

The ISRP was pleased to see an emphasis on winter icing conditions. Most projects ignore this very important ecological driver of stream communities.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables for each objective are for the most part quantitative and thereby allow for an eventual evaluation of effectiveness. All the deliverables, work elements, metrics and methods seem appropriate, with a couple specific exceptions:

DELV-16: It would be very useful to have data on condition factors of juvenile salmonids by site and over time. The ISRP suggests that this be added to the parameters measured.

DELV-18: How is local capacity building accomplished? For example, are there internships available for students? Further, can capacity building and local responsibility be improved by instituting a citizen science program?

The monitoring program appears to be adequate within the basin, but perhaps not tied closely enough with this project. The sponsors appear to have kept up to date on data analysis. Metrics and methods of the RM&E program are based on Oregon’s Aquatic Inventory protocol as well as EMAP and CHaMP, adapted for the Grande Ronde basin. These protocols are well established and should provide an adequate basis for Grand Ronde habitat monitoring.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The protocols and methods were adequately described in MonitoringMethods.org.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

This is a strong proposal. The project has an impressive record of accomplishments and is an effective habitat improvement program. The sponsors are to be especially commended for their efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the projects. They could be providing leadership for some of the other local projects that are struggling to establish comprehensive, integrative, and successful programs. The ISRP encourages the sponsors to publish their results in refereed journals.

The following qualifications should be addressed during contracting or in future proposals and reports:

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:08:09 PM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1984-025-00-NPCC-20131122
Project: 1984-025-00 - Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Improvement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1984-025-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1984-025-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1984-025-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Multiple fish habitat restoration projects (fencing, planting), appears to be on both private and non-private lands; multiple other entities may be authorized/required; need to confirm confirmation of screening or other criteria to ensure BPA is not funding activities landowner already required to perform; need confirmation that cost-share is reasonable.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1984-025-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1984-025-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1984-025-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1984-025-00 - Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Improvement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This project has treated 70 miles of stream in the past 20 years. The sponsors expressed frustration with what they perceive as a mixed message on the scale of monitoring and evaluation required of this type of habitat improvement project. They note that instructions from BPA and Council propose that this type of project should conduct only implementation and compliance monitoring and it should not exceed 5% of the budget. They cite dialog between Jim Geiselman from BPA and Lyman McDonald (formerly of the ISAB and ISRP) at a habitat-monitoring workshop several years ago as an example of the different expectations of the ISRP and BPA.

The ISRP acknowledges and appreciates the sponsor's frustration regarding the extent of monitoring and evaluation expected of them. To clarify for sponsors, the ISRP examines the sufficiency of data collections and evaluation to measure progress toward achieving biological objectives identified in a proposal, and benefits for focal species.

Concern # 1 raised by the sponsors: "This project should implement effectiveness monitoring" is a misinterpretation of the ISRP's preliminary review. In that review the ISRP states: "The effectiveness monitoring conducted by the sponsors, or other projects should be identified." Later in the review the ISRP states: "M&E could be accomplished by other projects, but needs to be detailed and address which project and entities will be doing it."

The ISRP does not suggest that individual projects need to conduct their own M&E. Other projects can accomplish that task. However, sponsors should be able to describe the M&E and summarize the status of the data collections, evaluations, and management implications.

The sponsors reply to the request for more detail on monitoring methods with a list of metrics and methods that they, or others, use for monitoring and evaluation. This is a reasonable beginning, but not a sufficient presentation of the monitoring for this project. For example, under the topic "Habitat Monitoring Transects," the sponsors state that these transects collect data in selected study areas. They go on to state that there are 140 habitat monitoring transects on four streams, and that data have been collected on three to five year intervals. This appears to be an impressive and important data set. For the ISRP to complete its evaluation of this project, it needs to know what streams were monitored, what kinds of treatment each stream received, what was the desired biological outcome (physical habitat or biological condition), how many years of data have been collected, how the analysis is being conducted, and what is the interpretation from the data set.

The sponsors provide a short but acceptable reply to the ISRP query about the management implications of the past 20 years of habitat restoration treatments.

Finally, the sponsors explain the 30 miles of spawning ground surveys conducted by project staff. They state that they did not include this data in the project history because they do not feel they can make any direct correlation between spawning adult fish and habitat modifications. The ISRP concludes that this is important data and an important conclusion. All of that information should be in the project history section.

Fundable (qualified), with the qualification that the ISRP should review a special report, or annual report, that presents an analysis of the data from this project together with a summary of the conclusions about benefits to the focal species and management recommendations for further habitat treatments. This should be reviewed by the ISRP in FY07.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1984-025-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1984-025-00 - Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Improvement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Sponsor should complete accomplishments report as called for in ISRP recommendation. Funding in FY08 and 09 contingent upon favorable review by ISRP and Council. See also programmatic recommendation on habitat m&e.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Winston Morton Technical Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Dan Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Joe Smietana Technical Contact Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Colleen Fagan Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Ellen Wilt Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration