Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Project Number:
1992-026-01
Title:
Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Summary:
The Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program coordinates watershed planning activities within the Grande Ronde and Imnaha river basins of Oregon. The watershed activities are focused on habitat protection and restoration, and are generally designed to restore and enhance salmon and steelhead resources, encourage and support land and water management, economics, and multiple land uses consistent with sound ecosystem management, and enhance the quality and quantity of river flow.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2004
Ending FY:
2041
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Grande Ronde 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Burbot
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Crappie, Black
Crappie, White
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
Other Anadromous
Other Resident
Perch, Yellow
Pike, Northern
Pikeminnow, Northern
Sockeye - Other
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Willamette River DPS
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Lake
Trout, Rainbow
Walleye
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: Page: 5 Map 1: Little Creek East Bryan Street Fish Passage Vicinity Map

Project(s): 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 898 x 1158

Description: Page: 6 Photo 3: Pre-project-May 2010 flooding

Project(s): 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 486 x 367

Description: Page: 6 Photo 4: Pre-project-June 2010 flooding

Project(s): 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 484 x 345

Description: Page: 7 Photo 5: Post Project: New steel bridge spans entire channel. Wingwalls and riprap protect the structure.

Project(s): 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 820 x 613

Description: Page: 7 Photo 6: Post Project: Guardrails were installed, road grade elevated and the road repaved.

Project(s): 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 817 x 613

Contract(s):

74313 REL 54

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

74313 REL 54

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

74313 REL 54

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

74313 REL 54

Dimensions: 526 x 526

Contract(s):

74313 REL 54

Location: 45.151944° N, -117.737222° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

74313 REL 54

Location: 45.151944° N, -117.737222° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.487222° N, -117.424722° E

Dimensions: 526 x 526

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.493055° N, -117.409722° E

Dimensions: 802 x 802

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.492500° N, -117.409166° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.492222° N, -117.409166° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.491944° N, -117.408611° E

Dimensions: 802 x 802

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.492222° N, -117.408888° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.493333° N, -117.408888° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.493611° N, -117.408888° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

79905 REL 5

Location: 45.493611° N, -117.408333° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

90071

Dimensions: 4032 x 3024

Contract(s):

88558

Dimensions: 1296 x 976

Contract(s):

88558

Dimensions: 1296 x 976

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.208888° N, -118.394444° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.174444° N, -118.387500° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.174444° N, -118.387500° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.150833° N, -118.373611° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.150833° N, -118.373611° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.150833° N, -118.373611° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.143611° N, -118.368055° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.143611° N, -118.368055° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.143611° N, -118.368055° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.143611° N, -118.368055° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.143611° N, -118.368055° E

Dimensions: 802 x 802

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.143611° N, -118.368055° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.131111° N, -118.363055° E

Dimensions: 1101 x 1101

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.131111° N, -118.363055° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.131111° N, -118.363055° E

Dimensions: 802 x 802

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.131111° N, -118.363055° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.131111° N, -118.363055° E

Dimensions: 802 x 802

Contract(s):

73982 REL 167

Location: 45.131111° N, -118.363055° E

Dimensions: 1512 x 1512


Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $3,792,824 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2023 Expense $1,320,372 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) sept 19 Transfers 09/19/2023
FY2024 Capital $1,320,372 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) sept 19 Transfers 09/19/2023
FY2024 Capital $1,700,579 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Capital FY24 Transfers 02/23/2024
FY2024 Expense $3,979,692 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY24 SOY Upload #2 06/08/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2023 $1,723,368 41%
2022 $1,632,377 29%
2021 $2,719,805 40%
2020 $1,192,605 23%
2019 $1,292,991 24%
2018 $2,318,795 39%
2017 $1,970,911 31%
2016 $2,467,299 38%
2015 $4,418,890 54%
2014 $2,625,150 52%
2013 $2,284,794 47%
2012 $898,509 20%
2011 $781,114 16%
2010 $1,156,506 21%
2009 $665,400 14%
2008 $951,636 18%
2007 $852,549 36%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
34740 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP GRMW CAPITAL PLANNING DESIGN History $329,659 9/10/2007 - 4/30/2009
37152 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 CAP DEER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Closed $100,595 5/1/2008 - 8/31/2009
94888 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 CAP LITTLE CREEK DIVERSIONS 5/6 FISH PASSAGE IMPRVMT Issued $1,700,579 6/1/2024 - 9/30/2025
CR-362022 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 CAP CATHERINE CREEK ELMER DAM FISH PASSAGE & FLOW Pending $1,320,372 9/30/2024 - 12/31/2025
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
353 REL 1 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) BEAR CREEK, MORES, EGLESON/WALLOWA History $3,250 7/14/1997 - 10/31/2000
8674 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-043-00 UNION COUNTY TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE History $8,184 5/3/1999 - 3/14/2002
7541 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1999-47 WET MEADOW INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT Closed $8,501 6/1/1999 - 12/31/2002
8018 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1999-49 GRANDE RONDE BASIN GAUGING STATION MONITORING Closed $6,246 6/1/1999 - 1/31/2002
410 REL 1 SOW Oregon State University 1997-031-00 MEADOW CREEK INSTREAM STRUCTURE/RIPARIAN EVAL History $6,550 12/31/1999 - 12/31/2000
121 REL 1 SOW University of Oregon 2000-051-01 RESEARCH STREAM RESTORATION Terminated $60,000 6/1/2000 - 12/31/2000
115 REL 1 SOW Wallowa Resources 200006000 BEAR GULCH WATERSHED RESTORATION 00BI26647 Terminated $35,050 6/1/2000 - 12/31/2003
116 REL 1 SOW Wallowa Resources 200006200 IMNAH/PARK DITCH WATER CONSERVATION Terminated $75,000 6/1/2000 - 12/31/2001
23 REL 1 SOW US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 200061 UPPER WILDCAT AND JOSEPH CREEK WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT Terminated $51,495 6/1/2000 - 12/31/2003
25 REL 1 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 2000063 MEADOW CR. RIPARIAN PASTURE FENCING Terminated $17,820 6/15/2000 - 12/31/2001
124 REL 1 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 2000-064-00 CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INCENTIVE Terminated $53,000 6/15/2000 - 12/31/2002
470 REL 2 SOW Union County 1998-049-00 MCINTYRE ROAD RELOCATION Closed $135,515 6/15/2000 - 2/28/2001
129 REL 1 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-065-00 MEADOW CREEK/HABBERSTAD FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Terminated $54,930 7/1/2000 - 6/30/2002
126 REL 1 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 200006900 GRANDE RONDE R. BASIN-CULVERT REPLACEMENTS Terminated $90,530 7/1/2000 - 12/31/2002
128 REL 1 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2000-066-00 MCCOY CREEK - ALTA CUNHA RANCHES RIP. RESTORATION Terminated $28,416 7/1/2000 - 6/30/2001
4369 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-061-00 GRANDE RONDE/UNION COUNTY SWCD CHANNEL, RD. History $53,888 4/3/2001 - 12/31/2002
4643 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 2001-018-00 PHILLIPS-GORDON WATERSHED ASSESSMENT History $15,000 5/1/2001 - 6/30/2002
6275 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1999-074-00 LITTLE FLY CREEK HEADCUT REHABILITATION History $0 5/16/2001 - 12/31/2001
5151 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 LITTLE CATHERINE AND LICK CREEK RESTORATION Closed $22,090 7/2/2001 - 9/30/2004
5683 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992-026-01 LOSTINE RIVER/CARCASS SUPPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION History $10,065 7/10/2001 - 3/3/2003
5889 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-26-1 LAGRANDE RANGER DISTRICT FY2001 PROJECTS Closed $53,829 7/11/2001 - 9/30/2004
5849 SOW US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1992-026-01 GROUSE CREEK RESTORATION Closed $13,929 7/13/2001 - 12/31/2003
5855 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-26-1 WALLOWA VALLEY RANGER DIST FY2001 PROJECTS Closed $108,368 7/19/2001 - 12/31/2004
6206 SOW Wallowa Resources 199202601 BEAR GULCH WATERSHED RESTORATION History $31,557 8/13/2001 - 12/31/2003
6201 SOW Wallowa Resources 2000-062-00 IMNAHA/PARK DITCH WATER CONSERVATION History $83,852 8/13/2001 - 12/31/2002
6204 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 2000-064-00 CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (CREP) INCEN History $29,309 8/13/2001 - 12/31/2002
6199 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2000-065-00 MEADOW CREEK/HABBERSTAD FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT History $222 8/13/2001 - 3/3/2003
6205 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE R BASIN - CULVERT REPLACEMENTS Closed $59,166 8/13/2001 - 10/31/2004
6207 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 2000-070-00 GRANDE RONDE RIVER FENCING Closed $11,195 8/13/2001 - 12/31/2002
CR-22449 SOW Union County 1998-049-00 MCINTYRE RD RELOCATION, PHASE 11-B Complete $168,113 8/13/2001 - 12/31/2005
6251 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 199202601 GRANDE RONDE MAINSTEM ENHANCEMENT History $89,395 8/14/2001 - 12/31/2004
6225 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 EAST END ROAD OBLITERATION AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION Closed $8,639 8/14/2001 - 12/31/2002
6235 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 199202601 WALLOWA COUNTY DIREST SEEDING History $38,993 8/14/2001 - 6/30/2004
6227 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 MEADOW CREEK RIPARIAN PASTURE FENCING Closed $15,854 8/14/2001 - 7/31/2004
6238 SOW Wallowa Resources 199202601 MARR FLAT ALLOTMENT & BIG SHEEP IMNAHA FISHERIES ENHA History $43,020 8/14/2001 - 12/31/2003
6231 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2000-066-00 MCCOY CREEK - ALTA CUNHA RANCHES RIPARIAN RESTORATION History $3,631 8/14/2001 - 12/31/2002
6249 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 2000-061-00 UPPER WILDCAT & JOSEPH CREEK WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT Closed $25,726 8/14/2001 - 12/31/2003
6243 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1997-078-00 CATHERINE CREEK.CR IRRIGATION/STABILIZATION History $9,431 8/15/2001 - 9/13/2004
6245 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM Closed $506,758 8/15/2001 - 9/30/2004
6246 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1997-101-00 WATER QUALITY MONITORING/GRANDE RONDE History $0 8/15/2001 - 12/31/2001
6248 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-049-01 MCINTYRE ROAD RELOCATION History $0 8/15/2001 - 12/31/2001
6250 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 UPPER GRANDE RONDE & CATHERINE CREEK WATERSHED REST. Closed $32,065 8/15/2001 - 9/30/2004
6258 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-037-00 GRANDE RONDE MAINSTEM FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Closed $5,642 8/15/2001 - 12/31/2003
6256 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 BEAVER CREEK FISH PASSAGE Closed $15,519 8/15/2001 - 9/30/2004
6277 SOW Eastern Oregon State University 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED Closed $421,728 8/16/2001 - 12/31/2004
6307 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-071-00 HAGEDORN ROAD RELOCATION/STREAM RESTORATION History $16,630 8/20/2001 - 12/30/2001
6314 SOW Wallowa Valley Golf Association 199202601 ALPINE MEADOWS - TROUT CREEK RESTORATION Closed $37,880 8/20/2001 - 12/31/2003
6308 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-045-00 WATER TERMERATURE MANIPULATION/DATA SHARING History $10,444 8/20/2001 - 12/31/2001
6309 SOW Wallowa County 1999-072-00 WILDCAT CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT History $76,770 8/20/2001 - 12/31/2002
6310 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-044-00 WALLOWA COUNTY TECH ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE History $0 8/20/2001 - 12/31/2003
6431 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE BASIN TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE History $29,067 8/24/2001 - 10/31/2004
6661 SOW Union County 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED Closed $71,660 9/1/2001 - 12/31/2002
6660 SOW Wallowa County 1992-026-01 BUE ROAD IMPROVEMENT History $0 9/5/2001 - 12/31/2002
6663 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 LOSTINE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT History $18,397 9/6/2001 - 6/30/2004
6662 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MOBIL WATERSHED History $67,438 10/1/2001 - 12/31/2004
9812 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 LITTLE SHEEP CREEK LARGE WOOD PLACEMENT & CULVERT REP History $21,450 5/15/2002 - 12/31/2003
9847 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED CHARTER DEVELOPMENT PHAS History $39,173 6/6/2002 - 9/30/2004
10467 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 WALLOWA COUNTY CREP COORDINATOR Closed $29,866 7/18/2002 - 12/31/2004
10479 SOW US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1992-026-01 DARK CANYON RIPARIAN EXCLOSURE Closed $5,050 7/18/2002 - 12/31/2002
10534 SOW Union County 1992-026-01, GRANDE RONDE VALLEY STREAM GAUGING History $18,920 7/18/2002 - 12/31/2004
10547 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 UPPER GRANDE RONDE DIRECT SEED INCENTIVE PROGRAM History $40,618 8/5/2002 - 9/30/2004
11200 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-26-1 LA GRANDE RANGER DIST FY 02 PROJECTS Closed $108,080 9/17/2002 - 9/30/2004
11695 SOW Union County 1992-026-01 GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM History $384,042 10/1/2002 - 9/30/2006
12339 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 199202601 LONGLEY MEADOW RESTORATION PROJECT History $131,940 10/1/2002 - 9/30/2005
13184 SOW US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE RIVER BASIN WATERSHED ENGINEER Closed $337,607 10/1/2002 - 9/30/2005
16581 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) MILL CREEK-LEWIS DIVERSION History $3,347 1/23/2004 - 7/1/2004
18328 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992 026 01 LA GRANDE OFF-SITE WATER DEVELOPMENTS Closed $8,139 6/15/2004 - 12/31/2004
18331 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992 026 01 GRANDE RONDE BASIN GAUGING STATION MONITORING Closed $11,100 6/15/2004 - 12/31/2004
18798 SOW Wallowa Resources PI 199202601 SWAMP CREEK HARDWOOD AND WETLAND RESTORATION History $41,419 6/15/2004 - 12/31/2004
18631 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK OFF-CHANNEL REARING HABITAT Closed $39,683 6/28/2004 - 6/30/2005
18622 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992 026 01 BEAR CREEK ROAD WORK Closed $37,575 7/1/2004 - 9/30/2007
18635 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK/SWACKHAMMER FISH PASSAGE History $118,708 7/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
18819 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 WALLOWA RIVER/MCDANIEL HABITAT RESTORATION Closed $104,553 7/19/2004 - 8/31/2005
18850 SOW Wallowa Resources 199202601 JOSEPH CREEK STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT History $114,861 7/19/2004 - 9/30/2005
19685 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 CEDAR HILL FARM WETLAND ENHANCEMENT History $11,000 9/15/2004 - 12/31/2004
19693 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 APLINE MEADOWS HABITAT ENHANCEMENT History $6,679 9/15/2004 - 9/30/2005
20117 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992 026 01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMIN Closed $150,319 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
20546 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) PI 1992-026-01 END CRK/RICE FISH HABITAT AND WETLAND RESTORATION History $197,792 12/1/2004 - 6/30/2007
20535 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 DRY CREEK/LOWER VALLEY DITCH PASSAGE History $57,750 12/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
20507 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 POLEY ALLEN DIVERSION STRUCTURE MODIFICATION History $45,380 12/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
20531 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 UNION SWCD ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE History $20,741 12/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
21263 SOW Eastern Oregon State University 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED ADMIN - EOU History $101,856 2/1/2005 - 12/31/2005
22052 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK SWIM-THRU FISHWAY FIELD TEST History $26,950 3/21/2005 - 4/27/2006
22190 SOW Wallowa County 1992-026-01 WALLUPA FISH PASSAGE CULVERT REPLACEMENT History $5,805 4/1/2005 - 9/30/2005
22211 SOW Wallowa County 1992-026-01 WILDCAT FISH PASSAGE CULVERT REPLACEMENT History $5,324 4/1/2005 - 9/30/2005
22091 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992 026 01 GRANDE RONDE BASIN GAUGING STATION MONITORING Closed $23,600 4/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
22522 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 SWAMP CREEK HARDWOOD AND WETLAND RESTORATION History $23,519 5/1/2005 - 12/31/2005
22523 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT History $10,630 5/1/2005 - 12/31/2005
22518 SOW Union County 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE VALLEY STREAM GAUGING - UNION COUNTY History $16,214 5/1/2005 - 6/30/2006
22524 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 WALLOWA CANYONLANDS WEED REMOVAL History $42,372 5/1/2005 - 4/30/2006
22948 SOW Rockeye Crm DRY CREEK / LOWER VALLEY DITCH History $2,000 5/23/2005 - 7/15/2005
23028 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION History $276,938 6/6/2005 - 9/30/2006
25203 SOW US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE BASIN ENGINEER Closed $38,294 11/4/2005 - 9/30/2006
26347 SOW Eastern Oregon State University 1992-026-01 EXP GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMIN - EOU History $120,800 2/10/2006 - 12/31/2006
26828 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP BUTTE CREEK/HAMPTON BRIDGE CROSSING History $33,951 3/1/2006 - 11/30/2006
27255 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992 026 01 MAHOGANY CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT History $39,584 5/1/2006 - 9/30/2006
27236 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992 026 01 SMUTZ DRAW FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT Closed $35,935 5/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
27448 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP BEAR CREEK/CUHNA'S RIPARIAN VEGETATION MONITORING History $21,000 5/1/2006 - 11/30/2006
27284 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA COUNTY STREAM FLOW GAUGING STATIONS History $35,184 5/1/2006 - 4/30/2007
27208 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER LADD CREEK IN-CHANNEL HABITAT ENHANCEMENT History $8,743 5/1/2006 - 12/31/2007
27853 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992 026 01 FLY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE I Closed $19,930 6/1/2006 - 9/30/2006
27914 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP SHAW CREEK PASSAGE AND SEDIMENT IMPROVEMENT History $62,107 6/15/2006 - 5/30/2007
27985 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP MEADOW CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (MCCOY MEADOWS) History $103,955 6/15/2006 - 9/30/2006
28020 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION History $13,993 7/1/2006 - 9/30/2006
28948 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 JOSEPH CREEK WATERSHED: UPLAND WATER REHABILITATION History $28,571 9/1/2006 - 9/30/2006
28841 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 EXP SUMMIT CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT History $23,780 9/1/2006 - 9/30/2006
29565 SOW Union County 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED ADMIN (UNION CO) History $143,048 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
29298 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED ADMIN (GRMWF) History $248,224 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
29539 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATIONS History $76,336 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
30697 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 LADD CREEK/LADD MARSH CHANNEL/WETLAND RECONSTRUCTION Closed $276,175 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2010
30789 SOW Eastern Oregon State University 1992-026-01 EXP GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMIN - EOU Closed $178,534 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
32151 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER/MCDANIEL RECHANNEL PHASE II Closed $107,300 4/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
33368 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION Closed $31,605 6/1/2007 - 9/30/2007
32501 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP END CREEK RESTORATION Closed $28,876 6/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
33136 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP CATHERINE CREEK STATE DIVERSION FISH PASSAGE Closed $86,720 6/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
34829 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED GRMWF ADMIN Closed $437,105 10/1/2007 - 12/31/2008
34944 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATIONS Closed $54,763 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
35108 SOW Union County 199202601 EXP GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED ADMIN UNION CO Closed $174,620 10/1/2007 - 12/31/2008
36382 SOW Eastern Oregon State University 199202601 EXP GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMIN - EOU Closed $105,822 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
37387 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP FISH PASSAGE/RIPARIAN ENH/CHANNEL RECONSTRUCT Closed $525,970 5/1/2008 - 4/30/2010
38145 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA CANYONLANDS WEED PARTNERSHIP Closed $42,400 5/1/2008 - 12/31/2008
39273 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATIONS 09 Closed $47,163 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
40845 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 9202601 EXP BIOP RIPARIAN FENCING & WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Closed $162,716 12/1/2008 - 11/30/2011
40485 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED GRMWF ADMIN 09 Closed $569,297 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2009
41781 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 EXP BIOP FLY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT Closed $253,190 3/1/2009 - 11/30/2010
42998 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 9202601 EXP BIOP UGR MINE TAILINGS RECLAMATION 09 Closed $299,215 4/1/2009 - 3/31/2010
41876 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 CAP GRMW CAPITAL PLANNING DESIGN 09/10 History $256,832 5/1/2009 - 4/30/2011
41875 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER TAMKALIKS CHANNEL DESIGN - NPT Closed $24,965 5/1/2009 - 4/30/2010
42743 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 CAP BIOP TOWNLEY DOBBIN & MILL CREEK FISH PASSAGE History $95,818 6/1/2009 - 12/31/2010
43181 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP LICK CREEK FENCE Closed $31,680 7/1/2009 - 6/30/2010
43071 SOW Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE INVASIVE WEED CONTROL 09 Closed $30,000 7/1/2009 - 6/30/2010
43519 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA CANYONLANDS WEED PARTNERSHIP Closed $30,000 8/1/2009 - 10/31/2010
44496 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATIONS 2010 Closed $48,990 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
45280 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP BIOP NORTH FORK CABIN CREEK/SHEEHY REARING HABITAT Closed $285,939 12/1/2009 - 12/31/2011
46044 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED GRMWF ADMIN 10 Closed $892,461 1/1/2010 - 4/30/2011
46833 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 EXP BIOP UGR MINE TAILINGS RECLAMATION 10 Closed $57,127 4/1/2010 - 2/29/2012
47425 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP BEAR CREEK RESTORATION 10/11 Closed $236,480 5/1/2010 - 2/29/2012
48363 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 9202601 EXP BIOP DARK CANYON/MEADOW CRK FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Closed $83,713 6/15/2010 - 3/31/2012
48499 SOW Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE INVASIVE WEED CONTROL 10 Closed $29,750 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011
48575 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CK ELMER-H WETLAND & REARING HABITAT Closed $52,402 7/1/2010 - 12/31/2012
49570 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATIONS 2011 2012 Closed $110,120 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2012
52075 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK DAVIS DAMS FISH PASSAGE Closed $1,808,338 4/1/2011 - 12/31/2012
52786 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMWF ADMINISTRATION, PLANNING & DESIGN 11 Closed $1,047,001 5/1/2011 - 4/30/2012
52673 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP BIG SHEEP/BUEHLER DIVERSION STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT Closed $71,957 5/1/2011 - 4/30/2012
52838 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RV CROSS CO CANAL DIVERSION REPLACEMENT Closed $138,540 5/1/2011 - 4/30/2012
53180 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP GODLEY DITCH DIVERSION FISH PASSAGE Closed $63,300 6/1/2011 - 4/30/2012
52986 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP DARK CANYON CULVERT REPLACEMENT Closed $121,437 6/1/2011 - 2/28/2013
52985 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 EXP BIOP S FORK CATHERINE CREEK FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION Closed $142,750 6/1/2011 - 7/31/2013
52984 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP UPPER GRANDE RONDE RIVER LARGE WOODY DEBRIS Closed $271,431 6/1/2011 - 2/28/2013
53617 SOW Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE INVASIVE WEED CONTROL 11/12 Closed $60,000 7/1/2011 - 6/30/2013
53925 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 BIOP EXP IMNAHA RIVER/MARR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT Closed $76,750 8/1/2011 - 4/30/2012
54083 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP LITTLE CREEK EAST BRYAN ST. FISH PASSAGE 11 Closed $60,000 9/1/2011 - 4/30/2012
54675 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 9202601 EXP BIOP TROUT CRK/ALPINE MEADOWS IRRIGATION FISH PASSAGE Closed $16,239 10/1/2011 - 12/31/2012
56216 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP LOSTINE RVR DIVERSION STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT Closed $118,533 3/1/2012 - 2/28/2013
56817 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMWF ADMINISTRATION, PLANNING & DESIGN 12 Closed $773,783 5/1/2012 - 4/30/2013
56665 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP BATTLE CREEK RESTORATION Closed $211,040 5/1/2012 - 6/30/2014
56664 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PHASE I Closed $209,346 5/1/2012 - 2/28/2014
57400 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 9202601 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK BAUM WETLAND AND REARING HABITAT Closed $116,753 7/1/2012 - 11/30/2013
58036 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK 37 STREAM & FISH HABITAT RESTORATION Closed $409,768 7/16/2012 - 6/30/2013
58754 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2013 Closed $55,010 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
59879 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP TROUT CRK/ALPINE MEADOWS FISH PASSAGE 13 Closed $265,257 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013
61108 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION, PLANNING & DESIGN 13 Closed $777,109 5/1/2013 - 4/30/2014
60704 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 9202601 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PHASE 2 Closed $580,981 5/1/2013 - 4/30/2015
60702 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS & PLANTING Closed $186,368 5/1/2013 - 4/30/2015
60703 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199202601 EXP BIOP N FORK CATHERINE CRK FORD/BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Closed $113,656 5/1/2013 - 4/30/2015
62025 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP LADD CREEK-HIGHWAY 203 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Closed $445,226 7/1/2013 - 10/31/2014
62161 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK 44 RESTORATION PHASE I Closed $132,066 8/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
63059 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2014 Closed $55,010 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
64583 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP UPPER GRANDE RONDE SMALL WOOD AND PODS Closed $149,892 4/1/2014 - 5/31/2015
64582 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK PHASE III UPLAND WATER PROJECT Closed $40,156 4/1/2014 - 5/31/2015
64581 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CHICKEN CREEK LWD AND PLANTING Closed $121,249 4/1/2014 - 2/29/2016
64942 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER/6-RANCH HABITAT RESTORATION II Closed $300,000 5/1/2014 - 12/31/2015
65111 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2014 Closed $717,966 5/1/2014 - 4/30/2015
64939 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 9202601 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CRK 44 STREAM/FISH HABITAT RESTORE II Closed $911,435 5/1/2014 - 4/30/2015
65835 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA BAKER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Closed $20,328 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
66220 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2015 Closed $55,010 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
68275 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 92-026-01 EXP BIOP FIVE POINTS LRG WOODY DEBRIS & PLANTING PH 1/2 Closed $641,474 4/1/2015 - 4/30/2017
68703 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2015 Closed $681,504 5/1/2015 - 4/30/2016
69030 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP FLY CREEK-SMITH PROPERTY RIPARIAN FENCING Closed $19,645 5/1/2015 - 12/31/2016
69258 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK UPLAND WATER SOURCE PHASE IIIA Closed $24,040 6/1/2015 - 5/31/2016
69267 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK 44 STREAM & FISH HABITAT III Closed $2,127,913 6/1/2015 - 3/31/2018
70183 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE RIVER SHEEP RIDGE DIVERSION Closed $144,750 9/1/2015 - 3/31/2017
70452 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2016 Closed $55,010 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
71415 SOW Cardno Inc MAPPING SERVICES Closed $38,625 1/15/2016 - 12/31/2017
71784 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY PROJECT Closed $50,059 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2018
71783 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP EAST SHEEP CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Closed $0 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2017
72412 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2016 Closed $677,836 5/1/2016 - 4/30/2017
72327 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK S. CROSS SHOEMAKER KINSLEY Closed $1,115,074 5/1/2016 - 12/31/2017
72002 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP DARK CANYON CREEK FENCING PROJECT 2016 Closed $37,966 5/1/2016 - 4/30/2017
72254 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP SHEEP CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT FSR 5160 Closed $406,219 5/1/2016 - 12/31/2019
72951 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER BAKER RESTORATION 2016 Closed $377,447 8/1/2016 - 12/31/2017
73314 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP BIRD TRACK SPRINGS PLANT & WOOD Closed $915,169 8/1/2016 - 8/31/2018
73720 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP MARR FLATS BIG SHEEP FENCE Closed $73,188 9/1/2016 - 12/31/2018
73352 SOW Wallowa Resources 1992-026-01 EXP LICK CREEK BRIDGE Closed $112,200 9/1/2016 - 11/30/2017
73888 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2017 Closed $55,010 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
72538 REL 1 SOW Inter-Fluve, Inc. 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK-HALL RANCH DESIGN SERVICES Closed $182,015 10/19/2016 - 4/30/2019
74428 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) CATHERINE CREEK-HALL RANCH - IT REVU-ARCH SURVEY Closed $20,747 12/1/2016 - 3/30/2020
75054 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 92-026-01 EXP LOSTINE TULLEY-HILL DESIGN/BUILD: PASSAGE/HABITAT Closed $218,928 2/1/2017 - 12/31/2018
74993 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP FIVE POINTS PHASE III Closed $130,430 4/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
75317 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2017 Closed $700,416 5/1/2017 - 4/30/2018
75265 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP LIMBER JIM & CHICKEN CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION Closed $541,406 5/1/2017 - 12/31/2018
75266 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE CULVERT REPLACEMENT Closed $182,172 5/1/2017 - 4/30/2018
75989 SOW City of La Grande 1992-026-01 EXP BEAVER CK DAM FISH PASSAGE STREAMFLOW RESTORATION Closed $150,000 6/1/2017 - 8/31/2018
73982 REL 22 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP BIRD TRACK SPRINGS RESTORATION 17/18 Closed $2,036,308 9/1/2017 - 12/31/2019
77023 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2018 Closed $55,010 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
72538 REL 2 SOW Inter-Fluve, Inc. 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK STATE PARK DESIGN Closed $111,584 1/16/2018 - 12/31/2020
73982 REL 44 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE RIVER RESTORATION Closed $538,395 4/1/2018 - 8/31/2019
78910 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY 2018 Closed $40,441 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
78923 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2018 Closed $684,876 5/1/2018 - 4/30/2019
79023 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA BAKER PHASE II - 2018 Closed $14,230 5/1/2018 - 6/30/2020
79330 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK RESTORE HAUL & STAGE MATERIALS Closed $194,283 6/1/2018 - 12/31/2019
79670 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP DRY CREEK AIWOHI CISCO HABITAT RESTORATION Closed $237,671 8/1/2018 - 7/31/2020
79751 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK RESTORATION - TU Closed $519,117 8/15/2018 - 7/31/2022
80100 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK RED MILL REACH RESTORATION Closed $49,258 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2020
79905 REL 1 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW DESIGN SERVICES Closed $540,000 9/1/2018 - 6/30/2022
79905 REL 2 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2019 Closed $55,010 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74313 REL 54 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992-026-01 EXP CC STATE PARK FISH HABITAT RESTORATION Closed $399,851 4/1/2019 - 11/30/2022
81778 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI SMALL STREAMS RESTORATION 2019-20 Closed $53,689 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
81779 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI WOODLEE RESTORATION 2019-20 Closed $126,150 4/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
79905 REL 3 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2019 Closed $635,788 5/1/2019 - 4/30/2020
74017 REL 51 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA (TAMKALIKS): SIDE CHANNEL-WETLAND COMPLEX Closed $298,514 5/1/2019 - 12/31/2021
73982 REL 79 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP LONGLEY MEADOWS Closed $1,826,316 9/1/2019 - 12/31/2021
83066 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP ELMER DAM FISH PASSAGE DESIGN - 15% Closed $59,138 9/1/2019 - 12/31/2020
79905 REL 5 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA MCDANIELS PH 3 Closed $482,527 9/30/2019 - 9/30/2021
79905 REL 4 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2020 Closed $55,010 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
84321 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PROJECT DESIGN Closed $68,892 3/1/2020 - 3/31/2021
84573 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER FLY CREEK RESTORATION Closed $325,280 3/1/2020 - 12/31/2021
84585 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER LIMBER JIM RESTORATION PH 2 Closed $98,002 3/1/2020 - 7/31/2021
84586 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UGR CHICKEN CREEK HEADWATERS SMALL STREAMS Closed $64,744 3/1/2020 - 3/31/2021
79905 REL 6 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2020 Closed $712,156 5/1/2020 - 4/30/2021
79905 REL 7 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW TECHNICAL ASSSESSMENT AND PLANNING Closed $990,215 6/1/2020 - 5/31/2022
85397 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RV WILSON HAUN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Closed $129,817 7/1/2020 - 12/31/2021
79905 REL 8 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP UGR BOWMAN OFF SITE WATER DEVELOPMENT Closed $64,852 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
85908 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP FREE WILLOW/LOWER WILLOW CK FISH PASSAGE Closed $106,828 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2022
85944 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP LITTLE CREEK DIVERSIONS 5 /6 TECH ASSISTANCE Closed $211,408 9/1/2020 - 2/28/2023
86096 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE BOULDER ADDITION Closed $205,260 9/1/2020 - 11/30/2021
86083 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PH 1 RECONNECT HABITAT Closed $255,891 9/14/2020 - 1/31/2022
86183 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE WOLF WELTLAND HABITAT Closed $210,894 9/28/2020 - 8/31/2022
86147 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP E FORK GRANDE RONDE UPPER FLY CK SMALL STREAM Closed $64,400 9/28/2020 - 12/31/2021
79905 REL 9 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2021 Closed $54,330 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
87067 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP ELMER DAM FISH PASS/FLOW IMPROVEMENT FINAL DESIGN Closed $196,000 2/1/2021 - 5/31/2022
87212 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE FLY CREEK RESTORATION/UGR HW HANDCREW Issued $346,249 4/1/2021 - 12/31/2022
79905 REL 11 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA FISH PASSAGE GREEN VALLEY RANCH DESIGN Closed $63,150 4/1/2021 - 3/31/2022
79905 REL 10 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE FLY CREEK HELICOPTER - GRMW Closed $820,915 4/1/2021 - 12/31/2022
79905 REL 12 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2021 Closed $859,505 5/1/2021 - 4/30/2022
79905 REL 14 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP UGR RIVER BOWMAN HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Closed $681,960 9/1/2021 - 8/31/2023
88558 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP JORDAN CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Closed $171,360 9/1/2021 - 12/31/2022
79905 REL 13 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP FOREST SERVICE SMALL STREAM RESTORATION Closed $63,072 9/1/2021 - 12/31/2022
88892 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP SHEEP CREEK STEWARDSHIP Closed $239,759 9/30/2021 - 12/31/2023
79905 REL 15 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP HIGHEST PRIORITY CULVERTS USFS DESIGNS Issued $251,000 9/30/2021 - 10/31/2023
73982 REL 139 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK RM43 PASSAGE DESIGN Issued $250,000 9/30/2021 - 10/1/2023
79905 REL 16 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2022 Closed $79,692 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
90071 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP WILSON-HAUN WALLOWA RIVER RESTORATION Issued $1,244,468 5/1/2022 - 4/30/2024
79905 REL 17 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2022 Closed $698,643 5/1/2022 - 4/30/2023
79905 REL 18 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER FLY CREEK RESTORATION 2022 Closed $316,200 5/1/2022 - 4/30/2023
74017 REL 107 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE RIVER POLEY ALLEN FISH PASSAGE Issued $189,911 6/1/2022 - 5/31/2024
90574 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP WILLOW CREEK FISH PASSAGE HUBER DAM Closed $240,245 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023
73982 REL 167 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE RESTORATION PH 2/3 Issued $942,050 8/1/2022 - 12/31/2023
90768 REL 1 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA GREEN VALLEY RANCH FISH PASSAGE 22 Closed $178,874 9/1/2022 - 12/31/2023
90768 REL 2 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2023 Closed $79,692 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
79905 REL 19 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2023 Issued $833,844 5/1/2023 - 4/30/2024
84044 REL 25 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP CHESNIMNUS CREEK WILLIAMS RESTORATION DESIGN 2023 Issued $99,750 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
90768 REL 3 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW TECHNICAL ASSSESSMENT AND PLANNING 23-25 Issued $861,682 8/1/2023 - 7/31/2025
84044 REL 26 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE RIVER MILE 5.7 FLOODPLAIN ENHANCEMENT Issued $389,730 9/1/2023 - 12/31/2025
90768 REL 4 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2024 Issued $79,692 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
90768 REL 5 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2024 Issued $874,119 5/1/2024 - 4/30/2025
CR-356520 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP ROCKIN' ELEVEN RANCH RESTORATION PLACEHOLDER Pending $0 7/1/2024 - 6/30/2025
CR-370872 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP TECHNICAL ASSESS LIDAR/LARGE WOOD CLASSIFICATION Pending $226,323 7/1/2024 - 10/31/2025
CR-372015 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP WILLOW CREEK FISH PASSAGE FINAL DESIGN Pending $64,659 7/1/2024 - 6/30/2025
CR-372016 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992-026-01 EXP BEAR CREEK RM 3.2-5.2 DESIGN Pending $150,000 8/1/2024 - 12/31/2025
CR-366710 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP HIGH PRIORITY FS INDIAN CREEK CULVERTS Pending $550,000 9/1/2024 - 8/31/2026
CR-370871 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP ELMER DAM PUMP STATION Pending $1,223,495 9/1/2024 - 8/31/2026
CR-369479 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE COMPLEX PH I ROAD RELOCATE Pending $125,009 9/30/2024 - 12/31/2025
CR-363034 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP LOOKINGGLASS BRIDGE Pending $800,000 12/1/2024 - 12/31/2025
CR-372122 SOW Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1992-026-01 EXP BUFFALO FLATS LITTLE CREEK RESTORATION PLACEHOLDR Pending $0 9/30/2025 - 8/31/2027



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):197
Completed:110
On time:110
Status Reports
Completed:1031
On time:364
Avg Days Late:14

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
6245 20117 1992 026 01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMIN US Forest Service (USFS) 08/15/2001 09/30/2005 Closed 1 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
6277 21263, 26347, 30789, 36382 199202601 EXP GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMIN - EOU Eastern Oregon State University 08/16/2001 12/31/2008 Closed 14 23 0 0 8 31 74.19% 0
13184 25203 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE BASIN ENGINEER US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 10/01/2002 09/30/2006 Closed 5 9 3 0 6 18 66.67% 0
12339 199202601 LONGLEY MEADOW RESTORATION PROJECT Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 10/01/2002 09/30/2005 History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11695 29565, 35108 199202601 EXP GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED ADMIN UNION CO Union County 10/01/2002 12/31/2008 Closed 13 10 0 0 5 15 66.67% 0
18635 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK/SWACKHAMMER FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 07/01/2004 12/31/2005 History 2 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
18622 1992 026 01 BEAR CREEK ROAD WORK US Forest Service (USFS) 07/01/2004 09/30/2007 Closed 9 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
18850 199202601 JOSEPH CREEK STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT Wallowa Resources 07/19/2004 09/30/2005 History 1 3 0 0 4 7 42.86% 0
19693 1992-026-01 APLINE MEADOWS HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/15/2004 09/30/2005 History 1 0 1 0 1 2 50.00% 0
20546 PI 1992-026-01 END CRK/RICE FISH HABITAT AND WETLAND RESTORATION Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 12/01/2004 06/30/2007 History 8 9 0 0 0 9 100.00% 0
20535 1992-026-01 DRY CREEK/LOWER VALLEY DITCH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 12/01/2004 12/31/2005 History 2 4 0 0 3 7 57.14% 0
20507 1992-026-01 POLEY ALLEN DIVERSION STRUCTURE MODIFICATION Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 12/01/2004 09/30/2005 History 1 6 0 0 2 8 75.00% 0
20531 1992-026-01 UNION SWCD ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 12/01/2004 09/30/2005 History 1 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
22052 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK SWIM-THRU FISHWAY FIELD TEST Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 03/21/2005 04/27/2006 History 1 2 0 0 1 3 66.67% 0
22091 1992 026 01 GRANDE RONDE BASIN GAUGING STATION MONITORING US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2005 09/30/2006 Closed 5 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
22190 1992-026-01 WALLUPA FISH PASSAGE CULVERT REPLACEMENT Wallowa County 04/01/2005 09/30/2005 History 1 0 0 1 5 6 0.00% 0
22211 1992-026-01 WILDCAT FISH PASSAGE CULVERT REPLACEMENT Wallowa County 04/01/2005 09/30/2005 History 1 0 0 1 6 7 0.00% 0
22524 1992-026-01 WALLOWA CANYONLANDS WEED REMOVAL Wallowa Resources 05/01/2005 04/30/2006 History 2 7 0 0 4 11 63.64% 0
22518 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE VALLEY STREAM GAUGING - UNION COUNTY Union County 05/01/2005 06/30/2006 History 4 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
22522 1992-026-01 SWAMP CREEK HARDWOOD AND WETLAND RESTORATION Wallowa Resources 05/01/2005 12/31/2005 History 2 6 0 0 6 12 50.00% 0
22523 1992-026-01 UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT Wallowa Resources 05/01/2005 12/31/2005 History 2 3 1 0 1 5 80.00% 0
23028 29298, 34740, 34829, 40485, 41876, 46044, 52786, 56817, 61108, 65111, 68703, 72412, 75317, 78923, 79905 REL 3, 79905 REL 6, 79905 REL 12, 79905 REL 17, 79905 REL 19, 90768 REL 5 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2024 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/06/2005 04/30/2025 Issued 105 217 0 0 35 252 86.11% 1
26828 1992-026-01 EXP BUTTE CREEK/HAMPTON BRIDGE CROSSING Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 03/01/2006 11/30/2006 History 4 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
27284 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA COUNTY STREAM FLOW GAUGING STATIONS Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 05/01/2006 04/30/2007 History 5 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
27236 1992 026 01 SMUTZ DRAW FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2006 12/31/2006 Closed 3 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
27448 1992-026-01 EXP BEAR CREEK/CUHNA'S RIPARIAN VEGETATION MONITORING Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2006 11/30/2006 History 7 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
27255 1992 026 01 MAHOGANY CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Nez Perce Tribe 05/01/2006 09/30/2006 History 2 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
27208 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER LADD CREEK IN-CHANNEL HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2006 12/31/2007 History 3 0 0 0 6 6 0.00% 0
27853 1992 026 01 FLY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE I US Forest Service (USFS) 06/01/2006 09/30/2006 Closed 1 4 0 0 2 6 66.67% 0
27985 1992-026-01 EXP MEADOW CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (MCCOY MEADOWS) Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 06/15/2006 09/30/2006 History 1 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
27914 1992-026-01 EXP SHAW CREEK PASSAGE AND SEDIMENT IMPROVEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/15/2006 05/30/2007 History 1 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
28020 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION Wallowa Resources 07/01/2006 09/30/2006 History 1 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
28841 1992-026-01 EXP SUMMIT CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Wallowa Resources 09/01/2006 09/30/2006 History 1 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
28948 1992-026-01 JOSEPH CREEK WATERSHED: UPLAND WATER REHABILITATION Wallowa Resources 09/01/2006 09/30/2006 History 1 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
29539 34944, 39273, 44496, 49570, 58754, 63059, 66220, 70452, 73888, 77023, 79905 REL 2, 79905 REL 4, 79905 REL 9, 79905 REL 16, 90768 REL 2, 90768 REL 4 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2024 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 10/01/2006 09/30/2024 Issued 70 89 5 0 10 104 90.38% 2
30697 1992-026-01 LADD CREEK/LADD MARSH CHANNEL/WETLAND RECONSTRUCTION Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 01/01/2007 12/31/2010 Closed 16 8 0 0 1 9 88.89% 0
32151 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER/MCDANIEL RECHANNEL PHASE II Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 04/01/2007 12/31/2007 Closed 2 3 0 0 6 9 33.33% 0
32501 1992-026-01 EXP END CREEK RESTORATION Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 06/01/2007 12/31/2007 Closed 2 9 0 0 1 10 90.00% 0
33136 199202601 EXP CATHERINE CREEK STATE DIVERSION FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/01/2007 12/31/2007 Closed 2 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
33368 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION Wallowa Resources 06/01/2007 09/30/2007 Closed 1 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
38145 43519 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA CANYONLANDS WEED PARTNERSHIP Wallowa Resources 05/01/2008 10/31/2010 Closed 9 21 0 0 5 26 80.77% 0
37152 1992-026-01 CAP DEER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2008 08/31/2009 Closed 6 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
37387 1992-026-01 EXP FISH PASSAGE/RIPARIAN ENH/CHANNEL RECONSTRUCT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2008 04/30/2010 Closed 9 10 0 0 1 11 90.91% 2
40845 9202601 EXP BIOP RIPARIAN FENCING & WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS US Forest Service (USFS) 12/01/2008 11/30/2011 Closed 12 23 0 0 0 23 100.00% 0
41781 199202601 EXP BIOP FLY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT US Forest Service (USFS) 03/01/2009 11/30/2010 Closed 7 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
42998 46833 199202601 EXP BIOP UGR MINE TAILINGS RECLAMATION 10 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2009 02/29/2012 Closed 12 16 0 0 0 16 100.00% 0
41875 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER TAMKALIKS CHANNEL DESIGN - NPT Nez Perce Tribe 05/01/2009 04/30/2010 Closed 5 2 0 0 1 3 66.67% 0
42743 199202601 CAP BIOP TOWNLEY DOBBIN & MILL CREEK FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/01/2009 12/31/2010 History 6 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
43181 1992-026-01 EXP LICK CREEK FENCE US Forest Service (USFS) 07/01/2009 06/30/2010 Closed 4 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
43071 48499, 53617 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE INVASIVE WEED CONTROL 11/12 Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area 07/01/2009 06/30/2013 Closed 16 13 0 0 2 15 86.67% 0
45280 199202601 EXP BIOP NORTH FORK CABIN CREEK/SHEEHY REARING HABITAT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 12/01/2009 12/31/2011 Closed 8 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 3
47425 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP BEAR CREEK RESTORATION 10/11 US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2010 02/29/2012 Closed 8 14 0 0 0 14 100.00% 0
48363 9202601 EXP BIOP DARK CANYON/MEADOW CRK FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 06/15/2010 03/31/2012 Closed 7 4 0 0 2 6 66.67% 0
48575 199202601 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CK ELMER-H WETLAND & REARING HABITAT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 07/01/2010 12/31/2012 Closed 10 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
52075 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK DAVIS DAMS FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 04/01/2011 12/31/2012 Closed 7 8 0 0 1 9 88.89% 0
52673 1992-026-01 EXP BIG SHEEP/BUEHLER DIVERSION STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2011 04/30/2012 Closed 5 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
52838 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RV CROSS CO CANAL DIVERSION REPLACEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2011 04/30/2012 Closed 5 6 0 0 2 8 75.00% 0
52985 199202601 EXP BIOP S FORK CATHERINE CREEK FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 06/01/2011 07/31/2013 Closed 9 12 0 0 0 12 100.00% 0
52984 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP UPPER GRANDE RONDE RIVER LARGE WOODY DEBRIS US Forest Service (USFS) 06/01/2011 02/28/2013 Closed 7 11 0 0 0 11 100.00% 0
52986 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP DARK CANYON CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 06/01/2011 02/28/2013 Closed 7 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
53180 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP GODLEY DITCH DIVERSION FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/01/2011 04/30/2012 Closed 3 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
53925 199202601 BIOP EXP IMNAHA RIVER/MARR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 08/01/2011 04/30/2012 Closed 3 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
54083 1992-026-01 EXP LITTLE CREEK EAST BRYAN ST. FISH PASSAGE 11 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/01/2011 04/30/2012 Closed 2 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
54675 59879 1992-026-01 EXP TROUT CRK/ALPINE MEADOWS FISH PASSAGE 13 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 10/01/2011 12/31/2013 Closed 9 6 0 0 6 12 50.00% 1
56216 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP LOSTINE RVR DIVERSION STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 03/01/2012 02/28/2013 Closed 4 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
56664 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PHASE I US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2012 02/28/2014 Closed 8 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
56665 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP BATTLE CREEK RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2012 06/30/2014 Closed 9 23 0 0 4 27 85.19% 2
57400 9202601 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK BAUM WETLAND AND REARING HABITAT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 07/01/2012 11/30/2013 Closed 6 9 0 0 0 9 100.00% 0
58036 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK 37 STREAM & FISH HABITAT RESTORATION Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 07/16/2012 06/30/2013 Closed 3 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
60703 199202601 EXP BIOP N FORK CATHERINE CRK FORD/BRIDGE REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2013 04/30/2015 Closed 9 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
60704 9202601 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PHASE 2 US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2013 04/30/2015 Closed 9 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
60702 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS & PLANTING US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2013 04/30/2015 Closed 9 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
62025 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP LADD CREEK-HIGHWAY 203 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 07/01/2013 10/31/2014 Closed 6 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
62161 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK 44 RESTORATION PHASE I Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 08/01/2013 09/30/2014 Closed 5 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
64583 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP UPPER GRANDE RONDE SMALL WOOD AND PODS US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2014 05/31/2015 Closed 5 10 0 0 1 11 90.91% 0
64582 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK PHASE III UPLAND WATER PROJECT US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2014 05/31/2015 Closed 5 9 0 0 1 10 90.00% 0
64581 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CHICKEN CREEK LWD AND PLANTING US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2014 02/29/2016 Closed 8 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
64939 9202601 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CRK 44 STREAM/FISH HABITAT RESTORE II Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 05/01/2014 04/30/2015 Closed 4 8 4 0 0 12 100.00% 0
64942 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER/6-RANCH HABITAT RESTORATION II Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2014 12/31/2015 Closed 7 12 0 0 2 14 85.71% 0
65835 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA BAKER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 07/01/2014 06/30/2015 Closed 4 2 0 0 1 3 66.67% 0
68275 92-026-01 EXP BIOP FIVE POINTS LRG WOODY DEBRIS & PLANTING PH 1/2 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2015 04/30/2017 Closed 9 10 0 0 1 11 90.91% 0
69030 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP FLY CREEK-SMITH PROPERTY RIPARIAN FENCING Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 05/01/2015 12/31/2016 Closed 7 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
69258 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK UPLAND WATER SOURCE PHASE IIIA US Forest Service (USFS) 06/01/2015 05/31/2016 Closed 4 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
69267 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK 44 STREAM & FISH HABITAT III Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 06/01/2015 03/31/2018 Closed 10 13 0 0 0 13 100.00% 0
70183 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE RIVER SHEEP RIDGE DIVERSION Nez Perce Tribe 09/01/2015 03/31/2017 Closed 6 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
71415 MAPPING SERVICES Cardno Inc 01/15/2016 12/31/2017 Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71784 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY PROJECT US Forest Service (USFS) 03/01/2016 02/28/2018 Closed 8 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
71783 1992-026-01 EXP EAST SHEEP CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 03/01/2016 02/28/2017 Closed 4 0 0 0 4 4 0.00% 1
72002 1992-026-01 EXP DARK CANYON CREEK FENCING PROJECT 2016 US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2016 04/30/2017 Closed 5 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
72327 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK S. CROSS SHOEMAKER KINSLEY Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 05/01/2016 12/31/2017 Closed 7 12 0 0 1 13 92.31% 0
72254 1992-026-01 EXP SHEEP CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT FSR 5160 US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2016 12/31/2019 Closed 15 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
73314 1992-026-01 EXP BIRD TRACK SPRINGS PLANT & WOOD Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 08/01/2016 08/31/2018 Closed 9 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
72951 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER BAKER RESTORATION 2016 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 08/01/2016 12/31/2017 Closed 6 9 0 0 0 9 100.00% 0
73352 1992-026-01 EXP LICK CREEK BRIDGE Wallowa Resources 09/01/2016 11/30/2017 Closed 5 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
73720 1992-026-01 EXP MARR FLATS BIG SHEEP FENCE Nez Perce Tribe 09/01/2016 12/31/2018 Closed 9 3 0 0 1 4 75.00% 0
75054 92-026-01 EXP LOSTINE TULLEY-HILL DESIGN/BUILD: PASSAGE/HABITAT Nez Perce Tribe 02/01/2017 12/31/2018 Closed 7 9 0 0 1 10 90.00% 0
74993 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP FIVE POINTS PHASE III US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2017 06/30/2018 Closed 5 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
75266 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2017 04/30/2018 Closed 5 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
75265 1992-026-01 EXP LIMBER JIM & CHICKEN CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 05/01/2017 12/31/2018 Closed 7 10 0 0 1 11 90.91% 0
75989 1992-026-01 EXP BEAVER CK DAM FISH PASSAGE STREAMFLOW RESTORATION City of La Grande 06/01/2017 08/31/2018 Closed 5 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
73982 REL 22 1992-026-01 EXP BIRD TRACK SPRINGS RESTORATION 17/18 Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/01/2017 12/31/2019 Closed 9 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
78910 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY 2018 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2018 03/31/2019 Closed 4 9 0 0 1 10 90.00% 0
73982 REL 44 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE RIVER RESTORATION Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 04/01/2018 08/31/2019 Closed 6 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
79023 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA BAKER PHASE II - 2018 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2018 06/30/2020 Closed 2 0 4 0 0 4 100.00% 9
79330 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK RESTORE HAUL & STAGE MATERIALS US Forest Service (USFS) 06/01/2018 12/31/2019 Closed 6 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
79670 1992-026-01 EXP DRY CREEK AIWOHI CISCO HABITAT RESTORATION Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 08/01/2018 07/31/2020 Closed 3 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
79751 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK RESTORATION - TU Trout Unlimited (TU) 08/15/2018 07/31/2022 Closed 17 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
80100 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK RED MILL REACH RESTORATION Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/01/2018 08/31/2020 Closed 8 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
79905 REL 1 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW DESIGN SERVICES Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/01/2018 06/30/2022 Closed 15 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
81779 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI WOODLEE RESTORATION 2019-20 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2019 06/30/2020 Closed 5 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
81778 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI SMALL STREAMS RESTORATION 2019-20 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2019 03/31/2020 Closed 4 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
74313 REL 54 1992-026-01 EXP CC STATE PARK FISH HABITAT RESTORATION Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 04/01/2019 11/30/2022 Closed 15 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
74017 REL 51 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA (TAMKALIKS): SIDE CHANNEL-WETLAND COMPLEX Nez Perce Tribe 05/01/2019 12/31/2021 Closed 11 8 0 0 1 9 88.89% 0
83066 1992-026-01 EXP ELMER DAM FISH PASSAGE DESIGN - 15% Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/01/2019 12/31/2020 Closed 5 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
73982 REL 79 1992-026-01 EXP LONGLEY MEADOWS Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/01/2019 12/31/2021 Closed 9 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 1
79905 REL 5 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA MCDANIELS PH 3 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/30/2019 09/30/2021 Closed 8 5 0 0 3 8 62.50% 0
84321 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PROJECT DESIGN Trout Unlimited (TU) 03/01/2020 03/31/2021 Closed 4 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
84586 1992-026-01 EXP UGR CHICKEN CREEK HEADWATERS SMALL STREAMS US Forest Service (USFS) 03/01/2020 03/31/2021 Closed 4 4 0 0 2 6 66.67% 0
84573 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER FLY CREEK RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 03/01/2020 12/31/2021 Closed 7 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
84585 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER LIMBER JIM RESTORATION PH 2 US Forest Service (USFS) 03/01/2020 07/31/2021 Closed 6 3 0 0 2 5 60.00% 0
79905 REL 7 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW TECHNICAL ASSSESSMENT AND PLANNING Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/01/2020 05/31/2022 Closed 8 11 0 0 0 11 100.00% 0
85397 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RV WILSON HAUN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Trout Unlimited (TU) 07/01/2020 12/31/2021 Closed 6 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
79905 REL 8 1992-026-01 EXP UGR BOWMAN OFF SITE WATER DEVELOPMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/01/2020 08/31/2021 Closed 4 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
86096 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE BOULDER ADDITION Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/01/2020 11/30/2021 Closed 5 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
85944 1992-026-01 EXP LITTLE CREEK DIVERSIONS 5 /6 TECH ASSISTANCE Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/01/2020 02/28/2023 Closed 10 2 0 0 1 3 66.67% 0
85908 90574 1992-026-01 EXP WILLOW CREEK FISH PASSAGE HUBER DAM Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/01/2020 06/30/2023 Closed 10 9 0 0 0 9 100.00% 1
86083 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PH 1 RECONNECT HABITAT Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/14/2020 01/31/2022 Closed 6 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
86147 1992-026-01 EXP E FORK GRANDE RONDE UPPER FLY CK SMALL STREAM US Forest Service (USFS) 09/28/2020 12/31/2021 Closed 5 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
86183 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE WOLF WELTLAND HABITAT Nez Perce Tribe 09/28/2020 08/31/2022 Closed 8 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
87067 1992-026-01 EXP ELMER DAM FISH PASS/FLOW IMPROVEMENT FINAL DESIGN Trout Unlimited (TU) 02/01/2021 05/31/2022 Closed 5 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
79905 REL 11 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA FISH PASSAGE GREEN VALLEY RANCH DESIGN Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 04/01/2021 03/31/2022 Closed 4 1 0 0 2 3 33.33% 0
79905 REL 10 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE FLY CREEK HELICOPTER - GRMW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 04/01/2021 12/31/2022 Closed 7 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
87212 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE FLY CREEK RESTORATION/UGR HW HANDCREW US Forest Service (USFS) 04/01/2021 12/31/2022 Issued 7 7 0 0 1 8 87.50% 0
79905 REL 13 1992-026-01 EXP FOREST SERVICE SMALL STREAM RESTORATION Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/01/2021 12/31/2022 Closed 5 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
88558 1992-026-01 EXP JORDAN CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 09/01/2021 12/31/2022 Closed 5 3 0 0 1 4 75.00% 0
79905 REL 14 1992-026-01 EXP UGR RIVER BOWMAN HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/01/2021 08/31/2023 Closed 8 9 0 0 1 10 90.00% 0
79905 REL 15 1992-026-01 EXP HIGHEST PRIORITY CULVERTS USFS DESIGNS Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/30/2021 10/31/2023 Issued 9 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
73982 REL 139 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK RM43 PASSAGE DESIGN Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/30/2021 10/01/2023 Issued 8 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
88892 1992-026-01 EXP SHEEP CREEK STEWARDSHIP Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/30/2021 12/31/2023 Closed 9 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
79905 REL 18 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER FLY CREEK RESTORATION 2022 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 05/01/2022 04/30/2023 Closed 5 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
90071 1992-026-01 EXP WILSON-HAUN WALLOWA RIVER RESTORATION Trout Unlimited (TU) 05/01/2022 04/30/2024 Issued 9 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
74017 REL 107 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE RIVER POLEY ALLEN FISH PASSAGE Nez Perce Tribe 06/01/2022 05/31/2024 Issued 7 5 2 0 0 7 100.00% 0
73982 REL 167 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE RESTORATION PH 2/3 Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 08/01/2022 12/31/2023 Issued 6 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
90768 REL 1 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA GREEN VALLEY RANCH FISH PASSAGE 22 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/01/2022 12/31/2023 Closed 5 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
84044 REL 25 1992-026-01 EXP CHESNIMNUS CREEK WILLIAMS RESTORATION DESIGN 2023 Nez Perce Tribe 07/01/2023 06/30/2024 Issued 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.00% 0
90768 REL 3 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW TECHNICAL ASSSESSMENT AND PLANNING 23-25 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 08/01/2023 07/31/2025 Issued 3 1 6 1 0 8 87.50% 0
84044 REL 26 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE RIVER MILE 5.7 FLOODPLAIN ENHANCEMENT Nez Perce Tribe 09/01/2023 12/31/2025 Issued 2 0 8 0 0 8 100.00% 0
94888 1992-026-01 CAP LITTLE CREEK DIVERSIONS 5/6 FISH PASSAGE IMPRVMT Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 06/01/2024 09/30/2025 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 1031 1219 37 3 187 1446 86.86% 23


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Complete final response, by May 1, 2022, to ISRP review (ISRP document 2018-11) in regards to the Projects 25-year synthesis review. See Policy Issue I.a. and III.b.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-ISRP-20230407
Project: 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 4/7/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The ISRP appreciates the leadership and positive impact of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW) on habitat restoration in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha rivers, the time they invest in responses and dialogue with us, and the importance of this group of subbasin projects for the Fish and Wildlife Program. The response addresses most issues raised in the preliminary review; however, one significant issue remains.

The ISRP requests the proponents to provide information on the following condition:

• Synthesis Report. The proponents should submit the completed Synthesis Report to the Council and BPA for ISRP review by May 1, 2022.

In our preliminary review, we requested responses on the following topics:

1. Synthesis report. The GRMW confirmed that it is committed to providing a revised Synthesis Report to include the ISRP’s request for a “comprehensive empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of restoration actions on fish populations and demonstrated progress at the landscape level” by May 1, 2022. The ISRP acknowledges that this is an ambitious task but believes it is very important. The agreement by BPA to allow the project to use BPA funds to complete this task is essential to its completion and success. We encourage BPA to ensure that adequate funds are provided for completing the synthesis, a product that will be valuable for other projects in the Columbia River Basin.

The GRMW outlined an approach for completing the revision of the Synthesis Report, which includes much of the original information on the history of the project, details on restoration projects completed by the GRMW, the M&E matrix summary requested by the ISRP in this response loop, the GRMW’s updated adaptive management process, and an integrated implementation and evaluation approach. The implementation and evaluation approach will include information on physical and biological responses to their restoration actions and results from a life cycle model (depending on timing of availability). They will use LIDAR for much of this analysis, which will limit their evaluation to the period from 2009 to the present. The ISRP understands this limitation, but we encourage the proponents to analyze their available data to the extent possible and summarize the results.

The brief description of the proponents’ plans for completing the Synthesis Report appears to address the original ISRP review of the Synthesis Report. We refer the proponents to the 2018 ISRP review of the Synthesis Report (ISRP 2018-11) for elements needed in the report. The GRMW has made substantial progress on many of the recommendations from this review, especially related to development of an adaptive management process and development of life cycles models, which the ISRP sees as major accomplishments of the GRMW and its collaborators.

The GRMW Response asked for an explanation of how the ISRP and Council will use this report. First, the ISRP emphasizes that the primary purpose of our past recommendations to develop the Synthesis Report is to guide the GRMW in their efforts to understand the degree to which it has accomplished its ecological objectives, identify major programmatic needs, and identify high priority actions for the future. The Atlas, life cycle models, and analyses of specific fish populations and habitats all provide valuable information, but they do not provide the integrated landscape strategy and assessment of benefits to fish and wildlife that this 29-yr project potentially produced. Readers will want to know if the current restoration strategy is working, and what targeted steps will be taken to address areas that require improvement. Second, the GRMW has made significant progress in developing an effective adaptive management process, and the description of their process for evaluation and adjustment could serve as a model for other projects. Third, the Synthesis Report will provide critical information on effective methods and landscape-level strategy for regional conservation efforts in the upper Columbia River and Snake River region. The ISRP reviews many projects with far fewer technical resources than the GRMW, and such projects would greatly benefit from seeing how the GRMW strategy has been developed, implemented, and evaluated. Furthermore, the ISRP anticipates that the information on quantitative responses to past restoration actions and lessons learned over the duration of the project will be valuable for the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program and individual projects and cooperators in the basin.

The ISRP greatly values the dialogue we have had with the GRMW in recent years. We have gained a much better understanding of the project and the challenges and limitations the proponents have faced. More importantly, we have learned much about the successes and leadership of the GRMW in the region. We continue to be available to discuss the proponents’ plans for completing the Synthesis Report and to clarify any scientific issues raised in our reviews.

2. SMART objectives. The proponents provided the additional information needed to specify the SMART aspects of their objectives. The GRMW provided objectives for physical and biological processes, implementation, and social processes by river basin and by sub-watershed. We appreciate the inclusion of explicit programmatic management goals, which provide information for tracking management effectiveness, and all objectives include metrics for measurement.

We requested additional information about how the proponents ensure that collaborators and other sponsors develop SMART objectives for their joint efforts. The response from the GRMW indicates that it requests all sponsors working with the GRMW to provide SMART objectives in step 3 of their Stepwise Process. The proponents’ response provides an example of how the online proposal format developed by the GRMW is designed to guide collaborating sponsors in developing SMART objectives. In the example provided in the SMART objectives spreadsheet, the sequence of worksheets for the specific Atlas project, limiting factors, restoration actions, and indicators provides a framework for SMART objectives that is more informative than most approaches we have seen. We encourage the proponents to ask sponsors to explain how the indicators will be measured, who will conduct the measurements, and who will compare the data to the specific desired outcomes. Such information often is lacking or overly brief.

3. M&E matrix – lead. The GRMW provided an Excel spreadsheet that identifies the biological and physical M&E efforts related to 90 implementation projects in the Grande Ronde/Imnaha subbasins. The spreadsheet includes information on seven types of biological responses (parr abundance, benthic macroinvertebrates, mussels, redd surveys, prespawn mortality, smolt abundance, smolt survival) and seven types of physical responses (habitat survey, water temperature, toxics, flow, riparian condition, groundwater, floodplain condition). The spreadsheet indicates the evaluation design for both project monitoring and basin-scale monitoring. The spreadsheet also identifies the project that was responsible for the monitoring, the watershed and biologically significant reach, and the project initiation or completion years. Seven BPA-funded projects provided information for the matrix. The GRMW did not request information for AEM sites in these two subbasins. The Nez Perce Tribes did not participate in developing the summary or providing information on their M&E efforts. In summary, the proponents provided initial information on all aspects of M&E that the ISRP requested in the response loop, though it did not include a narrative summary of monitoring efforts or maps of the locations. The proponents intend to provide a more complete version of the M&E summary in their Synthesis Report and include information on monitoring efforts of AEM, USFS, SWCD, BOR, and others in the subbasins. They plan to provide maps, and overall summary of the M&E efforts, and description of the linkages between projects in the final version in the Synthesis Report. With this additional information, the summary will serve as an excellent example of the cooperation between projects and collaborative identification of monitoring and evaluation in a geographic area that the ISRP envisioned in our request for M&E matrices.

The Council and Council staff have stated their support for developing summaries and matrices of the types and locations of monitoring efforts across projects in major geographic areas. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. We anticipate that the Fish and Wildlife Program will identify the specific elements and formats for these RM&E summaries and matrices in the near future. The proponents of this project should coordinate with Council staff to align their effort with future M&E summaries for geographic areas.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

The Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW) has developed a comprehensive watershed management approach and collaborates successfully with partners. The proponents have completed three Atlases, developed and implemented a structured decision-making tool for project identification, prioritization, and design, and obtained a Focused Investment Partnership from the Oregon Watershed Investment Board to provide $7 million in additional funding for restoration. They also have completed several major restoration projects, investigated potential toxic substances in the lower river, formed a place-based integrated water resources management plan with Union County, developed technical capability for remote aerial habitat surveys, produced the first draft of the 25-Year Synthesis Report, and partnered with more than 15 agencies, programs, and organizations. In addition to its achievements in recent years, the proponents have responded positively and constructively to recommendations from the ISRP and Council.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following issues in a point-by-point response to assist our review of the proposal:

  1. Synthesis report. The ISRP requests a description of the plans to revise the 25-Year Synthesis Report, including planned analyses, summary information, links to future project prioritization and planning, and the anticipated timeline for completion of the different elements and final report. The proponents recognize that more analysis and synthesis are needed. They indicate that they are committed to creating a comprehensive synthesis of the program’s benefits for fish and wildlife, as well as how the project has addressed limiting factors for key life stages. The ISRP strongly encourages the Council and BPA to allow the GRMW to use BPA funds to produce this fundamental programmatic element of a large-scale, long-term restoration program.
  2. SMART objectives. The project coordinates restoration actions in the Grande Ronde basin, and the proposal identifies the limiting factors and proposed actions for each project. No specific objectives are identified. Please explain how this project ensures that their partners develop SMART objectives for each project and whether SMART objectives are required in the Stepwise process.
  3. M&E matrix - lead. One of the challenges for ISRP reviewers is understanding the specific monitoring that is being conducted for multiple implementation projects. Habitat restoration projects or hatchery projects implement actions that are intended to address limiting factors and benefit fish and wildlife. Most of these projects do not directly monitor habitat conditions or biological outcomes, but most identify other projects in the basin that monitor aspects of physical habitat or focal fish species. The monitoring project(s) in the basin provides essential monitoring data for habitat, juvenile salmonid abundance and distribution, outmigration, survival, and adult returns for salmon and steelhead. Some monitoring projects focus on status and trends in basins, while others focus on habitat relationships and responses to local actions. It is unclear what monitoring the monitoring project(s) conducts for each implementation project.

Given the regional leadership responsibilities of this programmatic project, the ISRP requests the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. The summary should provide a table or matrix to identify what is being monitored for each implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. The summary also should explain how the projects are working together to evaluate progress toward addressing limiting factors and identify future actions. A map or maps could help identify the locations of monitoring actions. The monitoring information should clearly explain whether the biological monitoring is local information for the specific implementation site or basin scale monitoring of status and trends or fish in/fish out. We are asking implementation and other monitoring projects to assist your project in producing this summary.

The ISRP recognizes that this task may require more than two months to complete, but we will appreciate any progress that can be made, as well as updates on plans for their completion.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW) is one of the longest running habitat restoration projects funded by the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. It has developed a comprehensive watershed management approach, collaborating successfully with partners including Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW), Columbia River Intertribal Council (CRITFC), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Substantial improvements in its program since the 2017 Umbrella Review are evidenced in project outcomes, including:

• Completion of three Atlases— spatially explicit landscape databases for Catherine Creek, Upper Grande Ronde, and Wallowa/Imnaha — to track resource conditions and identify limiting factors, critical life stages, data gaps, and priorities for habitat protection and restoration

• Implementation of Stepwise, a structured decision-making tool, for project identification, prioritization, and design

• Acquisition of a Focused Investment Partnership from the Oregon Watershed Investment Board to provide $7 million in additional funding for restoration

• Completion of several major restoration projects, including fish passage for Beaver Creek and the Lostine River, and a large-scale restoration of the Catherine Creek in cooperation with the CTUIR

• Formation of a place-based integrated water resources management plan with Union County

• Development of a remote aerial survey system

• Preparation of the first draft of the 25-Year Synthesis Report.

The proposal presents a thorough description of the program’s background history and location, which reflects the information assembled in the initial version of the 2018 Synthesis Report. The proposal includes an informative history of key developments and implementation, as well as coordination of more than 280 projects by the GRMW since 1992. Based on Council recommendations in the 2013 Categorical Review, the GRMW focuses on coordination of restoration efforts rather than implementing projects. They have developed the expertise and infrastructure to conduct mapping and resource assessment, remote aerial surveys, and habitat suitability modeling.

The proposal includes quantitative information on the GRMW’s progress for major subbasin plan objectives: fish passage improvement, protection of high-quality habitat, watershed processes, channel conditions, riparian function, sediment reduction, and flow improvement. In addition, the proposal documents their achievements in bull trout recovery, project assistance, and public education and outreach. Objectives related to outreach and engagement (“Social goals and objectives”) are an important strength of this proposal that can serve as a model for other umbrella and Council projects. Achievements in all aspects have been significant and demonstrate the program’s effectiveness. The effectiveness of their collaboration and assistance is supported by their contribution to peer-reviewed publications with CRITFC and ODFW (Favrot and Jonasson 2020, Favrot, Jonasson, and Peterson 2018, Justice et al. 2017, Crump et al. 2019, White et al. 2021). Several of these peer review publications provide publicly available information sources for critical analyses and resource assessments that are related to the project.

The proposal provides SMART objectives for physical and biological processes, implementation, and social processes by river basin and by sub-watershed. The proposal also includes explicit management goals, which provide information for tracking management effectiveness. All objectives include metrics for measurement. While objectives are presented by the basin scale, SMART objectives specific to individual projects are not provided. The ISRP encourages the GRMW to ensure that associated implementation projects develop SMART objectives and document them in proposals and annual reports.

The proposal identifies several major confounding factors, including toxic substances, locations of major fish mortality in the lower watershed, human population growth, and climate change. The ISRP commends the project’s identification of approaches to address these potential factors, as well as application of their data and analyses in aiding future project selection, prioritization, and design processes.

Q2: Methods

The GRMW no longer implements restoration projects and now coordinates projects with partners, providing analytical resources (Atlases), project prioritization, selection and design (Stepwise), and data management (Atlases). The proposal provides brief descriptions of the databases and decision-making process, which are described in greater detail in Appendix B and on the GRMW website (https://www.grmw.org/). The data layers in the Atlases provide extensive information on historical distribution, habitat conditions, biological data, water quality, and social attributes.

Projects anticipated for 2021-2027 (44 titles) are listed in Appendix A, including information on major fish population group, priority population, priority watershed, limiting life stages, limiting habitat conditions, prioritized habitat action types, project titles, proponent organizations, exact location, and proposed year of implementation. While the limiting factors and proposed actions are described for each project, specific SMART objectives are not provided for each. Do the partners develop SMART objectives for each project? Is that a requirement in this Umbrella Project’s Stepwise process?

The proposal includes an overall project timeline from 2022 to 2027 and a Gantt chart for specific work elements by quarter.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The GRMW proposal notes the funding for monitoring was reduced for all partners, not just the GRMW. They are both using data and information from the three Action Effectiveness Monitoring sites (AEM) and applying the AEM findings and conclusions in project selection and design. The GRMW has a long history of collaborating effectively with ODFW and CRITFC to obtain fish and habitat data, results of landscape modeling, and results from the life cycle models for Catherine Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde River. They have developed a model of habitat suitability that provides spatially continuous, reach-specific information on habitat conditions and suitability for Chinook and steelhead. They are using the life cycle models for projecting juvenile Chinook responses to restoration actions and the contribution of the projects to improving viable salmon population parameters and capacity.

The GRMW has responded positively and effectively to past ISRP recommendations to develop adaptive management processes. The proposal and Appendix B describe their adaptive management plan in detail. They have used the State-of-the-Science annual meetings and their collaboration with CRITFC and ODFW to create an ongoing process linking every phase of the planning, implementation, evaluation, and decision making. Much of this approach is captured in a recent peer-reviewed publication (White et al. 2021), which is valuable resource to all projects supported under the Fish and Wildlife Program. Nevertheless, the description of the adaptive management plan raises questions about how, by whom, and when are the final recommendations made and recorded after conclusions are reached at the State-of-the-Science meeting, and when are the recommendations presented to the Board, TAC, and IT?

The ISRP commends the proponents for continuing to pursue efforts to understand limits to recovery in the basin. The two-year surface water quality assessment of the Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek is critical to understanding whether poor surface water quality plays a role in historically high levels of outmigrant Chinook salmon smolt mortality observed between February and May. They detected elevated concentrations of copper at four locations, which may be related to the ongoing smolt mortality in the lower reach around La Grande. This has been a major uncertainty and limit on the success of their program for several decades. It will be important to continue working with state and federal agencies to better understand and possibly address the serious water quality issues.

As an Umbrella project dedicated to coordinating restoration and conservation efforts in the Grande Ronde, Wallowa, and Imnaha basins, the GRMW has developed effective working relationships with many partners, including the CTUIR, Nez Perce Tribe, CRITFC, ODFW, NOAA Fisheries, AEM, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, USFS, USFWS, NRCS (SWCD), OWEB, Freshwater Trust, Trout Unlimited, Wallowa Resources, and counties.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proponents thoroughly describe the accomplishments of their past actions in terms of numbers and types of projects, as well as amounts of habitat restored or conserved. The GRMW produced an initial 25-Year Synthesis Report in response to a qualification from the ISRP, even though BPA would not allow BPA funds to be used to develop the report. The ISRP reviewed the report and commended them for completing the draft in spite of the difficulties faced.

However, the ISRP also found that a comprehensive empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of restoration actions on fish populations and demonstrated progress at the landscape level remains to be completed. The ISRP requested the proponents to provide a comprehensive empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of restoration actions on fish populations and demonstrated progress at the landscape level. This proposal starts to provide some of the information on the benefits of their actions on fish and wildlife resources. The project tracks four biological indicators and six habitat indicators as part of its SMART objectives and adaptive management plan. The ODFW Grande Ronde Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring Project provides annual estimates of Chinook and steelhead growth and survival. The proponents recognize that more analysis and synthesis is needed. They indicate that they are committed to creating a comprehensive synthesis of the program’s benefits for fish and wildlife, and the ISRP encourages the Council and BPA to allow them to use BPA funds to produce this fundamental programmatic element of a large scale, long-term restoration program.

References

Crump, C., L. Naylor, A. Van Sickle, Z. Mathias, and G. Shippentower. 2019. Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplemented Spring Chinook Salmon and Life Histories of Wild Summer Steelhead in the Grande Ronde Basin. Island City: CTUIR.

Favrot, S.D. and B.J. Jonasson. 2020. Fall and Winter Movement Dynamics of Naturally Produced Spring Chinook Salmon Parr in Two Neighboring Interior Pacific Northwest Natal Rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 149:532-551.

Favrot, S.D., B.J. Jonasson, and J.T. Peterson. 2018. Fall and Winter Microhabitat Use and Suitability for Spring Chinook Salmon Parr in a U.S. Pacific Northwest River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 147:151-170

Justice, C., S.M. White, D.A. McCullough, D.S. Graves, and M.R. Blanchard. 2017. "Can stream and riparian restoration offset climate change impacts to salmon populations?" Journal of Environmental Management 188: 212-227.

White, S.M., S. Brandy, C. Justice, K.A. Morinaga, L. Naylor, J. Ruzycki, E.R. Sedell, J. Steele, A. Towne James, G. Webster, and I. Wilson. Progress towards a comprehensive approach for habitat restoration in the Columbia Basin: Case study in the Grande Ronde River. Fisheries, December 4, 2020, fsh.10562. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10562

Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1992-026-01
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through 2016. Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #1 and # 2 in future reviews (also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring). Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP qualification #3 in future reviews. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #1 and # 2 in future reviews
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #1 and # 2 in future reviews
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP qualification #3 in future reviews.
Council Condition #4 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications #1 and # 2 in future reviews (also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1992-026-01
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 primary goal of Grande Ronde Model Watershed program (GRMW) is the restoration of habitat critical to the survival of native anadromous and resident fish populations. The GRMW coordinates watershed planning activities and funds habitat enhancement projects within the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins. The focus of the program currently is in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek.

The GRMW encourages and supports sound land and water management, the local economy, and multiple land uses consistent with sound ecosystem management. Collectively, the GRMW plays a central role in coordinating the actions of numerous regional programs conducted by Tribes, agencies, counties, and landowners. The effort to coordinate local habitat restoration activities and to engage public support more broadly are commendable and consistent with the landscape approach advocated by the ISAB and others. The technical aspects of the project are strong. The GRMW has a long history of accomplishment, trained and experienced staff, and a programmatic network that can maintain adaptive capacity.

The program is significant to regional programs and is consistent with numerous recovery plans directed at habitat protection and recovery including the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin Plans, the FCRPS Biological Opinion, the Oregon Plan, and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and more recent planning documents including the Atlas Process. The Atlas Process should be very useful to the GRMW program in its project planning and prioritization.

GMRW deserves credit for being proactive in expanding the scope of habitat restoration projects based on past experience, and for seeking to prioritize projects based on feasibility and biological benefits, for example the Stepwise project selection process and the Atlas Process. However, details were lacking on how feasibility and biological benefits are judged.

The Objectives and background are well described. The Objectives presented in the proposal, for example restore habitat connectivity and enhance floodplain connectivity, represent the desired outcomes of the suite of habitat enhancement projects funded through the GRMW program. The proposal includes adequate background information on the nature of the habitat problems being addressed, and extensive summaries of past activities with links to detailed results at individual sites. The results, in terms of individual projects, are impressive.

The Objectives are clearly related to the overall goal of improving native fish populations. The proposal, however, does not provide a compelling overview of progress towards achieving the program's Objectives, especially whether progress is being made in improving freshwater survival and growth of native fishes. Determining whether the GRMW is accomplishing its goals of habitat enhancement and improved freshwater fish productivity requires effectiveness monitoring, as emphasized by the ISRP in its previous review of this project. Effectiveness monitoring traditionally has not been a central component of the activities. The project has been in place since 1992, but it appears that effectiveness monitoring was only recently implemented.

With regard to this point, the sponsors make an important observation on p. 3: “Both the U.S. District Court in Oregon and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have held that the ESA standard of jeopardy requires NOAA Fisheries to consider not only whether the species will survive but how the prospective actions (including habitat improvement projects) will affect the species’ prospects for recovery.” The ISRP interprets this as meaning that the results of restoration actions need to be quantified via effectiveness monitoring or the use of quantitatively based models to predict outcomes. It does not appear that this is being done at a scale and scope which will meet this criterion.

The GRMW recognizes the importance of effectiveness monitoring but states that it is constrained by lack of funding. The GRMW has approached the issue in at least three ways. First, for each objective they propose metrics or measures to evaluate project success. The metrics, for example miles of fencing and acres of riparian planting, pertain mostly to implementation with the assumption that they are having the desired outcome of improving habitat conditions and fish abundance. This is a complex and uncertain assumption but, in lieu of M&E, it is understandable from a practical perspective, depending on whether there is a direct relationship between the metrics and the desired outcomes of habitat improvement such as restoration of habitat connectivity and enhancement of floodplain connectivity. This assumption may be generally true, but it does not provide a quantitative assessment of actual habitat improvements. For example, are riparian plantings and other efforts to enhance riparian areas stabilizing banks, providing shade, and reducing water temperature? Perhaps most importantly, are these actions benefitting fish? This can only be demonstrated though M&E.

Second, the sponsors state that they will rely on ODFW and CRITFC monitoring projects to provide “overall watershed habitat status." It would be helpful if the sponsors had provided more detail regarding the way that these projects will satisfy the need for effectiveness monitoring of GRMW projects.

Third, the GRMW has made an effort to incorporate more site specific monitoring in the individual projects funded through their program. This is a positive step, and the ISRP recommends that this effort continue and expand in the future. The effectiveness of the GRMW program ultimately depends on the cumulative success of the individual projects in improving habitat. It would be helpful if the sponsors had provided more detailed information about this effort, including the responsibility of the GRMW in planning and design of the monitoring process, as part of its coordination role.

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

The GRMW has successfully implemented an impressive number of projects. The Stepwise procedure developed for project selection, prioritization, and funding is a formalized process directly involving cooperators and includes technical review of each proposed project. This process helps ensure that individual projects share a common goal, that they are working in defined priority areas within the subbasins, and that closer cooperation among projects is fostered.

The Stepwise process, although useful, has limitations. It does not establish landscape scale priorities; rather, it assists the sponsors in developing and implementing individual projects. This limitation is important to recognize; how are priorities set at the landscape scale and the project class in terms of having a positive effect on fish survival? Further, how is the “biological benefit score” established and what are the components used to develop this quantitative score?

Results would be more meaningful if the sponsors presented at least a quantitative summary of how the projects it funds, taken together, have improved riparian and stream processes and freshwater survival of fish. If monitoring continues, as it should, the sponsors should develop an effective way of synthesizing results of individual projects to provide a “big picture” view of the success of the GMRW project as a whole.

Program management appears to have adapted appropriately to experience gained over 20 years, but this adaptation seems to have been passive rather than active. Adaptive management, as originally intended, requires deliberate experimentation to acquire the knowledge to reduce key uncertainties, with the goal of improving future decisions, and long-term benefits. Monitoring and evaluation are critical to such an adaptive management approach. Linking local monitoring of site specific projects to CHaMP methods used at watershed scales seems like an appropriate strategy given limited funding.

While learning is occurring at the program scale and at the scale of individual projects, the effectiveness of the adaptive management process could be vastly improved with the use of quantitative hypotheses or goals and the judicious use of reference sites for single actions or a group of actions. This would allow timely evaluation of effectiveness, and possibly the discovery of underlying mechanisms, and thereby improve learning.

Evaluation of Results

The purpose of the GRMW is to select, review, prioritize and fund habitat protection and restoration projects intended to benefit ESA-listed salmon and other fish species in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins. The GRMW is a well-established and successful program that appears to have established stable and deeply rooted relationships with cooperators in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Its accomplishments since its inception in 1992 are impressive. The GRMW appears to be a well-managed program and, with the development of the Stepwise process, has improved its procedure for selection, review, and prioritization of projects. A strength of this program is its close working relationship with state and local governments, Tribes, conservation groups, private landowners, and other local public interests to coordinate habitat restoration projects on state and public lands.

The Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation, established by the GRMW, contracts directly with BPA and other funding sources to fund and implement restoration projects. Working through the Foundation, the GRMW with its cooperators is able to consolidate and coordinate habitat restoration planning at a subbasin scale and, through a formalized, structured process for project selection, helps ensure that projects address limiting factors in priority watersheds identified in the subbasin and other plans (and in the upcoming Atlas). Because the GRMW provides funding for projects it can exercise considerable influence on project selection and implementation. The existence of a single entity, such as the GRMW, responsible for planning and project selection within a subbasin should be considered in other subbasins where coordination among habitat restoration projects appears to be more loosely defined.

Determining whether the GRMW is accomplishing its goals of improving habitat and freshwater productivity of fish requires a robust effectiveness monitoring program. At present, monitoring is not sufficient to clearly demonstrate positive impacts of habitat improvement actions on fish. The GRMW should develop an effectiveness monitoring program that is capable of demonstrating quantitatively progress toward achieving the objectives of the individual projects funded through the GRMW and of the GRMW as a whole.

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

The success of this project requires close coordination with agencies, tribes, and the public. The GRMW seems to have been very successful in developing and maintaining these relationships and enfranchising a wide range of stakeholders.

The sponsors recognize climate change, non-native plants, and toxic chemicals as emerging limiting factors. In reality, these are not emerging limiting factors but ones that are already present at significant levels. As such, they should be addressed directly by program actions. An additional “emerging limiting factor” may be increasing agricultural demands for water, and this could be examined through scenarios, at a minimum, or the use of quantitative models/trend analyses. Flow restoration will need to operate in cooperation with agricultural demands and climate change. The project needs to have a strong understanding as to how these factors may impact future water supplies and timing.

Administration and overhead are 34% of the budget. This seems high compared to other similar projects. Is there justification for this high rate? If so, a detailed justification should be provided, especially so in that rent/utilities are a line item in the budget; these items are usually covered under overhead except in exceptional circumstances.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project Deliverables are clearly linked to methods and individual restoration Objectives and should help meet the stated Objectives. Most of the Deliverables are classes of enhancement actions that will be undertaken by projects funded through GRMW. The specific projects that will be recommended for funding are given for each Deliverable. The ISRP assumes that these projects have already passed the Stepwise review process. A Deliverable as well as an Objective addressing M&E should be included. This Deliverable should specify the procedures the GRMW program will use to allocate funding for M&E. Will the GRMW propose guidelines for M&E for individual projects and will these guidelines or requirement be integrated into the Stepwise process for project selection? A more formalized process for M&E that applies to all projects funded through the GRMW is needed.

It was refreshing to see that the Deliverables were quantitative in terms of actions to be completed. The sociological results and benefits were highlighted in the Executive Summary but only lightly touched upon in the text. This is a highly important aspect central to the overall success in meeting programmatic goals. It should be directly addressed in the text, especially in the Work Elements and Deliverables.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No comments.


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

The Grande Ronde Model Watershed is a strong, well organized program, and has had considerable success in implementing a large number of habitat enhancement projects. However, it needs to improve effectiveness monitoring and the adaptive management process to incorporate climate change, toxic chemicals, and non-native plants into the active program, and set priorities at the landscape scale. Results should be judged in terms of improvements to freshwater survival and productivity of fish.

Analysis of monitoring data often lags behind data collection. The sponsors should consider enlisting the assistance of NOAA-Fisheries early in the process to assist with the design of monitoring actions and with data analysis.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
An Objective and Deliverable pertaining to M&E should be included in future proposals. An M&E Objective signifies a commitment to monitoring, especially effectiveness monitoring.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
In future proposals quantitative details should be provided on how past and current actions are influencing survival and growth of native fishes. This should include monitoring results and how the results have altered actions through the adaptive management process.
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
Develop plans and actions to fully integrate climate change, toxic chemicals, non-native species, and agricultural water demands into an effective program.
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 primary goal of Grande Ronde Model Watershed program (GRMW) is the restoration of habitat critical to the survival of native anadromous and resident fish populations. The GRMW coordinates watershed planning activities and funds habitat enhancement projects within the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins. The focus of the program currently is in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek.

The GRMW encourages and supports sound land and water management, the local economy, and multiple land uses consistent with sound ecosystem management. Collectively, the GRMW plays a central role in coordinating the actions of numerous regional programs conducted by Tribes, agencies, counties, and landowners. The effort to coordinate local habitat restoration activities and to engage public support more broadly are commendable and consistent with the landscape approach advocated by the ISAB and others. The technical aspects of the project are strong. The GRMW has a long history of accomplishment, trained and experienced staff, and a programmatic network that can maintain adaptive capacity.

The program is significant to regional programs and is consistent with numerous recovery plans directed at habitat protection and recovery including the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasin Plans, the FCRPS Biological Opinion, the Oregon Plan, and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and more recent planning documents including the Atlas Process. The Atlas Process should be very useful to the GRMW program in its project planning and prioritization.

GMRW deserves credit for being proactive in expanding the scope of habitat restoration projects based on past experience, and for seeking to prioritize projects based on feasibility and biological benefits, for example the Stepwise project selection process and the Atlas Process. However, details were lacking on how feasibility and biological benefits are judged.

The Objectives and background are well described. The Objectives presented in the proposal, for example restore habitat connectivity and enhance floodplain connectivity, represent the desired outcomes of the suite of habitat enhancement projects funded through the GRMW program. The proposal includes adequate background information on the nature of the habitat problems being addressed, and extensive summaries of past activities with links to detailed results at individual sites. The results, in terms of individual projects, are impressive.

The Objectives are clearly related to the overall goal of improving native fish populations. The proposal, however, does not provide a compelling overview of progress towards achieving the program's Objectives, especially whether progress is being made in improving freshwater survival and growth of native fishes. Determining whether the GRMW is accomplishing its goals of habitat enhancement and improved freshwater fish productivity requires effectiveness monitoring, as emphasized by the ISRP in its previous review of this project. Effectiveness monitoring traditionally has not been a central component of the activities. The project has been in place since 1992, but it appears that effectiveness monitoring was only recently implemented.

With regard to this point, the sponsors make an important observation on p. 3: “Both the U.S. District Court in Oregon and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have held that the ESA standard of jeopardy requires NOAA Fisheries to consider not only whether the species will survive but how the prospective actions (including habitat improvement projects) will affect the species’ prospects for recovery.” The ISRP interprets this as meaning that the results of restoration actions need to be quantified via effectiveness monitoring or the use of quantitatively based models to predict outcomes. It does not appear that this is being done at a scale and scope which will meet this criterion.

The GRMW recognizes the importance of effectiveness monitoring but states that it is constrained by lack of funding. The GRMW has approached the issue in at least three ways. First, for each objective they propose metrics or measures to evaluate project success. The metrics, for example miles of fencing and acres of riparian planting, pertain mostly to implementation with the assumption that they are having the desired outcome of improving habitat conditions and fish abundance. This is a complex and uncertain assumption but, in lieu of M&E, it is understandable from a practical perspective, depending on whether there is a direct relationship between the metrics and the desired outcomes of habitat improvement such as restoration of habitat connectivity and enhancement of floodplain connectivity. This assumption may be generally true, but it does not provide a quantitative assessment of actual habitat improvements. For example, are riparian plantings and other efforts to enhance riparian areas stabilizing banks, providing shade, and reducing water temperature? Perhaps most importantly, are these actions benefitting fish? This can only be demonstrated though M&E.

Second, the sponsors state that they will rely on ODFW and CRITFC monitoring projects to provide “overall watershed habitat status." It would be helpful if the sponsors had provided more detail regarding the way that these projects will satisfy the need for effectiveness monitoring of GRMW projects.

Third, the GRMW has made an effort to incorporate more site specific monitoring in the individual projects funded through their program. This is a positive step, and the ISRP recommends that this effort continue and expand in the future. The effectiveness of the GRMW program ultimately depends on the cumulative success of the individual projects in improving habitat. It would be helpful if the sponsors had provided more detailed information about this effort, including the responsibility of the GRMW in planning and design of the monitoring process, as part of its coordination role.

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

The GRMW has successfully implemented an impressive number of projects. The Stepwise procedure developed for project selection, prioritization, and funding is a formalized process directly involving cooperators and includes technical review of each proposed project. This process helps ensure that individual projects share a common goal, that they are working in defined priority areas within the subbasins, and that closer cooperation among projects is fostered.

The Stepwise process, although useful, has limitations. It does not establish landscape scale priorities; rather, it assists the sponsors in developing and implementing individual projects. This limitation is important to recognize; how are priorities set at the landscape scale and the project class in terms of having a positive effect on fish survival? Further, how is the “biological benefit score” established and what are the components used to develop this quantitative score?

Results would be more meaningful if the sponsors presented at least a quantitative summary of how the projects it funds, taken together, have improved riparian and stream processes and freshwater survival of fish. If monitoring continues, as it should, the sponsors should develop an effective way of synthesizing results of individual projects to provide a “big picture” view of the success of the GMRW project as a whole.

Program management appears to have adapted appropriately to experience gained over 20 years, but this adaptation seems to have been passive rather than active. Adaptive management, as originally intended, requires deliberate experimentation to acquire the knowledge to reduce key uncertainties, with the goal of improving future decisions, and long-term benefits. Monitoring and evaluation are critical to such an adaptive management approach. Linking local monitoring of site specific projects to CHaMP methods used at watershed scales seems like an appropriate strategy given limited funding.

While learning is occurring at the program scale and at the scale of individual projects, the effectiveness of the adaptive management process could be vastly improved with the use of quantitative hypotheses or goals and the judicious use of reference sites for single actions or a group of actions. This would allow timely evaluation of effectiveness, and possibly the discovery of underlying mechanisms, and thereby improve learning.

Evaluation of Results

The purpose of the GRMW is to select, review, prioritize and fund habitat protection and restoration projects intended to benefit ESA-listed salmon and other fish species in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Subbasins. The GRMW is a well-established and successful program that appears to have established stable and deeply rooted relationships with cooperators in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Its accomplishments since its inception in 1992 are impressive. The GRMW appears to be a well-managed program and, with the development of the Stepwise process, has improved its procedure for selection, review, and prioritization of projects. A strength of this program is its close working relationship with state and local governments, Tribes, conservation groups, private landowners, and other local public interests to coordinate habitat restoration projects on state and public lands.

The Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation, established by the GRMW, contracts directly with BPA and other funding sources to fund and implement restoration projects. Working through the Foundation, the GRMW with its cooperators is able to consolidate and coordinate habitat restoration planning at a subbasin scale and, through a formalized, structured process for project selection, helps ensure that projects address limiting factors in priority watersheds identified in the subbasin and other plans (and in the upcoming Atlas). Because the GRMW provides funding for projects it can exercise considerable influence on project selection and implementation. The existence of a single entity, such as the GRMW, responsible for planning and project selection within a subbasin should be considered in other subbasins where coordination among habitat restoration projects appears to be more loosely defined.

Determining whether the GRMW is accomplishing its goals of improving habitat and freshwater productivity of fish requires a robust effectiveness monitoring program. At present, monitoring is not sufficient to clearly demonstrate positive impacts of habitat improvement actions on fish. The GRMW should develop an effectiveness monitoring program that is capable of demonstrating quantitatively progress toward achieving the objectives of the individual projects funded through the GRMW and of the GRMW as a whole.

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

The success of this project requires close coordination with agencies, tribes, and the public. The GRMW seems to have been very successful in developing and maintaining these relationships and enfranchising a wide range of stakeholders.

The sponsors recognize climate change, non-native plants, and toxic chemicals as emerging limiting factors. In reality, these are not emerging limiting factors but ones that are already present at significant levels. As such, they should be addressed directly by program actions. An additional “emerging limiting factor” may be increasing agricultural demands for water, and this could be examined through scenarios, at a minimum, or the use of quantitative models/trend analyses. Flow restoration will need to operate in cooperation with agricultural demands and climate change. The project needs to have a strong understanding as to how these factors may impact future water supplies and timing.

Administration and overhead are 34% of the budget. This seems high compared to other similar projects. Is there justification for this high rate? If so, a detailed justification should be provided, especially so in that rent/utilities are a line item in the budget; these items are usually covered under overhead except in exceptional circumstances.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project Deliverables are clearly linked to methods and individual restoration Objectives and should help meet the stated Objectives. Most of the Deliverables are classes of enhancement actions that will be undertaken by projects funded through GRMW. The specific projects that will be recommended for funding are given for each Deliverable. The ISRP assumes that these projects have already passed the Stepwise review process. A Deliverable as well as an Objective addressing M&E should be included. This Deliverable should specify the procedures the GRMW program will use to allocate funding for M&E. Will the GRMW propose guidelines for M&E for individual projects and will these guidelines or requirement be integrated into the Stepwise process for project selection? A more formalized process for M&E that applies to all projects funded through the GRMW is needed.

It was refreshing to see that the Deliverables were quantitative in terms of actions to be completed. The sociological results and benefits were highlighted in the Executive Summary but only lightly touched upon in the text. This is a highly important aspect central to the overall success in meeting programmatic goals. It should be directly addressed in the text, especially in the Work Elements and Deliverables.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No comments.


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

The Grande Ronde Model Watershed is a strong, well organized program, and has had considerable success in implementing a large number of habitat enhancement projects. However, it needs to improve effectiveness monitoring and the adaptive management process to incorporate climate change, toxic chemicals, and non-native plants into the active program, and set priorities at the landscape scale. Results should be judged in terms of improvements to freshwater survival and productivity of fish.

Analysis of monitoring data often lags behind data collection. The sponsors should consider enlisting the assistance of NOAA-Fisheries early in the process to assist with the design of monitoring actions and with data analysis.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:03:39 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable qualified. Sponsor should complete report as called for in ISRP recommendation. Funding in 08 and 09 contingent upon favorable review by ISRP and Council. Project to be implemented with reduced scope Some work elements may be able to be capitalized.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1992-026-01 - Grande Ronde Model Watershed
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:
The sponsors have satisfactorily addressed the ISRP's concerns and we thank them for clarifying several important issues regarding the operation of the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program (GRMWP). The ISRP reiterates that the GRMWP has been highly successful in implementing projects and has an outstanding record of cooperative work among government and private entities. A central ISRP concern about the GRMWP was that the proposal did not provide an adequate summary of project effectiveness and monitoring. The sponsors make the point that compiling the results of 150 projects would yield benefits but is precluded due to fiscal limitations related to the 5% budget limitation imposed by BPA. The ISRP appreciates the sponsor's willingness to undertake this assessment, which apparently would largely require compilation of existing records, and encourages the NPCC and BPA to provide funds for this effort. This expenditure would be appropriate because the GRMWP is the largest program of its type in the basin -- truly a "model" as the name implies -- and the assessment would allow a better evaluation of the success of the program.

Qualification: The sponsors should develop a report presenting quantitative and qualitative results to date pertaining to the effectiveness of the projects under their domain, a general summary and conclusions about overall project effectiveness, and the application of the results to management. The sponsors should report positive results as well as results from projects that to date may not yet have produced significant effects. This effort should be funded by BPA and reviewed by the ISRP in FY07. The response of the sponsors of project # 199608300 may provide some guidance for preparation of the report.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1992-026-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration activities; multiple other entities potentially authorized/required to conduct; need confirmation that funding not applied for entities already required to conduct the work.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1992-026-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1992-026-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 9/14/2007
Capital Rating: Qualifies for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: Fish Passage Improvement
Comment: Capital funding approval submitted by BPA COTR. The COTR, COTR's Manager and BPA Accountant certified that the request meets the BPA F&W capital policy and is approved for capital funding (if capital funds are available).

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Tracy Hauser Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Mary Estes Project Lead Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Daniel Gambetta Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Robert Shull Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Andre L'Heureux (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Steele Supervisor Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Jody Lando Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Kayla Morinaga Technical Contact Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Ian Wilson Technical Contact Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Connar Stone Interested Party Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Alexandra Towne Interested Party Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Sean Welch Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Lindsey Arotin Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Anna Neuzil Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration