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:
2021
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 - 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: 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 898 x 1158

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

Project: 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 486 x 367

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

Project: 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: 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: 1992-026-01

Document: P126138

Dimensions: 817 x 613


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  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $4,121,315 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $186,531 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) GRMW - FY19 08/07/2020
FY2021 Expense $4,000,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY21 SOY 06/09/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
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
2020 $1,192,605 (Draft) 23% (Draft)
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, 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
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
502 REL 1 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1998-037-01 COL BASIN F&W MITIGATION, GR RONDE MAINSTEM HAB ENHAN Terminated $81,600 8/1/1998 - 12/31/2001
409 REL 1 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 98-49-1 MCINTYRE ROAD RELOCATION PROJECT Terminated $7,500 9/28/1998 - 12/31/2001
490 REL 1 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-037-00 GRANDE RONDE MAINSTEM HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Terminated $21,481 1/1/1999 - 12/31/2000
176 REL 1 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED Terminated $309,429 1/1/1999 - 12/31/2000
647 REL 1 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-045-00 WATER TEMP MANIPULATION & DATA SHARING SOFTWARE Terminated $18,211 5/3/1999 - 12/31/2001
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
8012 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1999-49 GRANDE RONDE BASIN GAUGING STATION MONITORING Terminated $5,246 6/1/1999 - 1/31/2002
6 REL 1 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199905800 UPPER GRAND RONDE & CATHERINE CREEK/USFS WATERSHED RES Terminated $137,343 9/15/1999 - 12/31/2001
620 REL 1 SOW Wallowa County 1999-072-00 WILDCAT CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Terminated $88,000 9/20/1999 - 12/31/2001
470 REL 1 SOW Union County 1998-049-00 MCINTYRE ROAD RELOCATION Terminated $135,515 10/18/1999 - 12/31/2000
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
626 REL 1 SOW University of Idaho 1999-022-00 ASSESS GENETIC VARI IN COLUMBIA BASIN WHITE STURGEON Terminated $67,818 1/1/2000 - 12/31/2000
361 REL 1 SOW Eastern Oregon State University 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED Terminated $106,526 4/1/2000 - 12/31/2001
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
114 REL 1 SOW Wallowa Resources 200005900 MARR FLAT ALLOTMENT & BIG SHEEP IMNAHA FISH. ENHANCE Terminated $63,590 6/1/2000 - 12/31/2003
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
125 REL 1 SOW Union County 1998-049-00 MCINTYRE ROAD RELOCATION - PHASE II-B 00BI28191 Terminated $196,543 6/15/2000 - 12/31/2002
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
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
674 REL 1 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1999-073-00 GRANDE RONDE BASIN TECH ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE Terminated $73,200 9/27/2000 - 12/31/2001
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
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
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
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
6235 SOW Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 199202601 WALLOWA COUNTY DIREST SEEDING History $38,993 8/14/2001 - 6/30/2004
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16581 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) MILL CREEK-LEWIS DIVERSION History $3,347 1/23/2004 - 7/1/2004
18798 SOW Wallowa Resources PI 199202601 SWAMP CREEK HARDWOOD AND WETLAND RESTORATION History $41,419 6/15/2004 - 12/31/2004
18635 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK/SWACKHAMMER FISH PASSAGE History $118,708 7/1/2004 - 12/31/2005
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
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
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
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
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
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
41876 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 199202601 CAP GRMW CAPITAL PLANNING DESIGN 09/10 History $256,832 5/1/2009 - 4/30/2011
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
69258 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK UPLAND WATER SOURCE PHASE IIIA Issued $26,599 6/1/2015 - 5/31/2016
71784 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY PROJECT Issued $54,766 3/1/2016 - 2/28/2018
72254 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP SHEEP CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT FSR 5160 Issued $419,012 5/1/2016 - 12/31/2019
74993 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP FIVE POINTS PHASE III Issued $130,430 4/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
75265 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP LIMBER JIM & CHICKEN CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION Issued $564,225 5/1/2017 - 12/31/2018
75266 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE CULVERT REPLACEMENT Issued $263,230 5/1/2017 - 4/30/2018
72538 REL 2 SOW Inter-Fluve, Inc. 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK STATE PARK DESIGN Issued $129,909 1/16/2018 - 12/31/2020
78910 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY 2018 Issued $40,441 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
79330 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK RESTORE HAUL & STAGE MATERIALS Issued $201,974 6/1/2018 - 12/31/2019
79751 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK RESTORATION - TU Issued $519,117 8/15/2018 - 12/31/2020
79905 REL 1 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW DESIGN SERVICES Issued $540,000 9/1/2018 - 6/30/2022
74313 REL 54 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992-026-01 EXP CC STATE PARK FISH HABITAT RESTORATION Issued $367,190 4/1/2019 - 12/31/2020
81778 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI SMALL STREAMS RESTORATION 2019-20 Issued $64,243 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
81779 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI WOODLEE RESTORATION 2019-20 Issued $145,945 4/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
74017 REL 51 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA (TAMKALIKS): SIDE CHANNEL-WETLAND COMPLEX Issued $203,480 5/1/2019 - 12/31/2020
73982 REL 79 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP LONGLEY MEADOWS Issued $1,925,556 9/1/2019 - 12/31/2021
83066 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP ELMER DAM FISH PASSAGE DESIGN - 15% Issued $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 Issued $482,527 9/30/2019 - 9/30/2021
84321 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PROJECT DESIGN Issued $68,892 3/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
84573 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER FLY CREEK RESTORATION Issued $325,394 3/1/2020 - 12/31/2021
84585 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER LIMBER JIM RESTORATION PH 2 Issued $103,136 3/1/2020 - 4/30/2021
84586 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1992-026-01 EXP UGR CHICKEN CREEK HEADWATERS SMALL STREAMS Issued $65,252 3/1/2020 - 3/31/2021
79905 REL 6 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW ADMINISTRATION 2020 Issued $748,714 5/1/2020 - 4/30/2021
79905 REL 7 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW TECHNICAL ASSSESSMENT AND PLANNING Issued $704,579 6/1/2020 - 5/31/2022
85397 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RV WILSON HAUN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Issued $106,630 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 Issued $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 Issued $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 Issued $225,000 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2022
86096 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE BOULDER ADDITION Issued $298,050 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
86083 SOW Trout Unlimited (TU) 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PH 1 RECONNECT HABITAT Issued $222,990 9/14/2020 - 8/31/2021
86183 SOW Nez Perce Tribe 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE WOLF WELTLAND HABITAT Issued $410,033 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 Signature $64,400 9/28/2020 - 12/31/2021
CR-341832 SOW 1992-026-01 EXP PLACEHOLDER Pending $0 10/1/2020 -
79905 REL 9 SOW Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATION 2021 Issued $55,010 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
CR-340403 SOW 1992-026-01 EXP WILSON-HAUN WALLOWA RIVER PROJECT Pending $0 8/1/2021 - 12/31/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):156
Completed:72
On time:72
Status Reports
Completed:780
On time:271
Avg Days Late:14

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
6245 20117 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM US Forest Service (USFS) 08/2001 08/2001 Closed 1 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
6277 21263, 26347, 30789, 36382 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED Eastern Oregon State University 08/2001 08/2001 Closed 14 23 0 0 8 31 74.19% 0
13184 25203 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE RIVER BASIN WATERSHED ENGINEER US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 10/2002 10/2002 Closed 5 9 3 0 6 18 66.67% 0
12339 199202601 LONGLEY MEADOW RESTORATION PROJECT Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 10/2002 10/2002 History 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11695 29565, 35108 1992-026-01 GRAND RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM Union County 10/2002 10/2002 Closed 13 10 0 0 5 15 66.67% 0
18635 1992-026-01 CATHERINE CREEK/SWACKHAMMER FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 07/2004 07/2004 History 2 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
18622 1992 026 01 BEAR CREEK ROAD WORK US Forest Service (USFS) 07/2004 07/2004 Closed 9 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
18850 199202601 JOSEPH CREEK STEELHEAD RESTORATION PROJECT Wallowa Resources 07/2004 07/2004 History 1 3 0 0 4 7 42.86% 0
19693 1992-026-01 APLINE MEADOWS HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/2004 09/2004 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) 12/2004 12/2004 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 12/2004 12/2004 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) 12/2004 12/2004 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) 12/2004 12/2004 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 03/2005 03/2005 History 1 2 0 0 1 3 66.67% 0
22091 1992 026 01 GRANDE RONDE BASIN GAUGING STATION MONITORING US Forest Service (USFS) 04/2005 04/2005 Closed 5 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
22190 1992-026-01 WALLUPA FISH PASSAGE CULVERT REPLACEMENT Wallowa County 04/2005 04/2005 History 1 0 0 1 5 6 0.00% 0
22211 1992-026-01 WILDCAT FISH PASSAGE CULVERT REPLACEMENT Wallowa County 04/2005 04/2005 History 1 0 0 1 6 7 0.00% 0
22518 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE VALLEY STREAM GAUGING - UNION COUNTY Union County 05/2005 05/2005 History 4 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
22524 1992-026-01 WALLOWA CANYONLANDS WEED REMOVAL Wallowa Resources 05/2005 05/2005 History 2 7 0 0 4 11 63.64% 0
22522 1992-026-01 SWAMP CREEK HARDWOOD AND WETLAND RESTORATION Wallowa Resources 05/2005 05/2005 History 2 6 0 0 6 12 50.00% 0
22523 1992-026-01 UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT Wallowa Resources 05/2005 05/2005 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 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE MODEL WATERSHED PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/2005 06/2005 Issued 87 159 14 0 33 206 83.98% 1
26828 1992-026-01 EXP BUTTE CREEK/HAMPTON BRIDGE CROSSING Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 03/2006 03/2006 History 4 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
27236 1992 026 01 SMUTZ DRAW FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2006 05/2006 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 05/2006 05/2006 History 7 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
27255 1992 026 01 MAHOGANY CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Nez Perce Tribe 05/2006 05/2006 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 05/2006 05/2006 History 3 0 0 0 6 6 0.00% 0
27284 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA COUNTY STREAM FLOW GAUGING STATIONS Wallowa County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 05/2006 05/2006 History 5 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
27853 1992 026 01 FLY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT PHASE I US Forest Service (USFS) 06/2006 06/2006 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) 06/2006 06/2006 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 06/2006 06/2006 History 1 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
28020 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION Wallowa Resources 07/2006 07/2006 History 1 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
28948 1992-026-01 JOSEPH CREEK WATERSHED: UPLAND WATER REHABILITATION Wallowa Resources 09/2006 09/2006 History 1 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
28841 1992-026-01 EXP SUMMIT CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT Wallowa Resources 09/2006 09/2006 History 1 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
29539 34944, 39273, 44496, 49570, 58754, 63059, 66220, 70452, 73888, 77023, 79905 REL 2, 79905 REL 4, 79905 REL 9 1992-026-01 GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN GAUGING STATION OPERATIONS Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 10/2006 10/2006 Issued 56 75 0 0 9 84 89.29% 2
30697 1992-026-01 LADD CREEK/LADD MARSH CHANNEL/WETLAND RECONSTRUCTION Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 01/2007 01/2007 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 04/2007 04/2007 Closed 2 3 0 0 6 9 33.33% 0
33368 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER JOSEPH CREEK RESTORATION Wallowa Resources 06/2007 06/2007 Closed 1 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
32501 1992-026-01 EXP END CREEK RESTORATION Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 06/2007 06/2007 Closed 2 9 0 0 1 10 90.00% 0
33136 199202601 EXP CATHERINE CREEK STATE DIVERSION FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/2007 06/2007 Closed 2 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 0
38145 43519 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA CANYONLANDS WEED PARTNERSHIP Wallowa Resources 05/2008 05/2008 Closed 9 21 0 0 5 26 80.77% 0
37152 1992-026-01 CAP DEER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2008 05/2008 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 05/2008 05/2008 Closed 9 10 0 0 1 11 90.91% 2
40845 9202601 EXP BIOP RIPARIAN FENCING & WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS US Forest Service (USFS) 12/2008 12/2008 Closed 12 23 0 0 0 23 100.00% 0
41781 199202601 EXP BIOP FLY CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT US Forest Service (USFS) 03/2009 03/2009 Closed 7 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
42998 46833 9202601 EXP BIOP UGR MINE TAILINGS RECLAMATION 09 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/2009 04/2009 Closed 12 16 0 0 0 16 100.00% 0
41875 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RIVER TAMKALIKS CHANNEL DESIGN - NPT Nez Perce Tribe 05/2009 05/2009 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 06/2009 06/2009 History 6 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
43181 1992-026-01 EXP LICK CREEK FENCE US Forest Service (USFS) 07/2009 07/2009 Closed 4 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
43071 48499, 53617 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE INVASIVE WEED CONTROL 09 Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area 07/2009 07/2009 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 12/2009 12/2009 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) 05/2010 05/2010 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) 06/2010 06/2010 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 07/2010 07/2010 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 04/2011 04/2011 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 05/2011 05/2011 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 05/2011 05/2011 Closed 5 6 0 0 2 8 75.00% 0
52985 199202601 EXP BIOP S FORK CATHERINE CREEK FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 06/2011 06/2011 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) 06/2011 06/2011 Closed 7 11 0 0 0 11 100.00% 0
52986 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP DARK CANYON CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 06/2011 06/2011 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 06/2011 06/2011 Closed 3 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
53925 199202601 BIOP EXP IMNAHA RIVER/MARR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 08/2011 08/2011 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 09/2011 09/2011 Closed 2 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
54675 59879 9202601 EXP BIOP TROUT CRK/ALPINE MEADOWS IRRIGATION FISH PASSAGE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 10/2011 10/2011 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 03/2012 03/2012 Closed 4 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
56665 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP BATTLE CREEK RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2012 05/2012 Closed 9 23 0 0 4 27 85.19% 2
56664 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PHASE I US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2012 05/2012 Closed 8 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
57400 9202601 EXP BIOP CATHERINE CREEK BAUM WETLAND AND REARING HABITAT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 07/2012 07/2012 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) 07/2012 07/2012 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) 05/2013 05/2013 Closed 9 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
60704 9202601 EXP BIOP MEADOW CREEK LARGE WOODY DEBRIS PHASE 2 AAA Septic Tank Pumping 05/2013 05/2013 Pending 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) 05/2013 05/2013 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) 07/2013 07/2013 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) 08/2013 08/2013 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) 04/2014 04/2014 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) 04/2014 04/2014 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) 04/2014 04/2014 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) 05/2014 05/2014 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 05/2014 05/2014 Closed 7 12 0 0 2 14 85.71% 0
65835 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA BAKER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 07/2014 07/2014 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) 04/2015 04/2015 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 05/2015 05/2015 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) 06/2015 06/2015 Issued 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) 06/2015 06/2015 Closed 10 13 0 0 0 13 100.00% 0
70183 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE RIVER SHEEP RIDGE DIVERSION Nez Perce Tribe 09/2015 09/2015 Closed 6 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
71415 MAPPING SERVICES Cardno Inc 01/2016 01/2016 Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71783 1992-026-01 EXP EAST SHEEP CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 03/2016 03/2016 Closed 4 0 0 0 4 4 0.00% 1
71784 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY PROJECT US Forest Service (USFS) 03/2016 03/2016 Issued 8 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
72002 1992-026-01 EXP DARK CANYON CREEK FENCING PROJECT 2016 US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2016 05/2016 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) 05/2016 05/2016 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) 05/2016 05/2016 Issued 15 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
73314 1992-026-01 EXP BIRD TRACK SPRINGS PLANT & WOOD Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 08/2016 08/2016 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 08/2016 08/2016 Closed 6 9 0 0 0 9 100.00% 0
73352 1992-026-01 EXP LICK CREEK BRIDGE Wallowa Resources 09/2016 09/2016 Closed 5 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
73720 1992-026-01 EXP MARR FLATS BIG SHEEP FENCE Nez Perce Tribe 09/2016 09/2016 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 02/2017 02/2017 Closed 7 9 0 0 1 10 90.00% 0
74993 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP FIVE POINTS PHASE III US Forest Service (USFS) 04/2017 04/2017 Issued 5 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
75266 1992-026-01 EXP UPPER GRANDE RONDE CULVERT REPLACEMENT US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2017 05/2017 Issued 5 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
75265 1992-026-01 EXP LIMBER JIM & CHICKEN CREEK HABITAT RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2017 05/2017 Issued 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 06/2017 06/2017 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) 09/2017 09/2017 Closed 9 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
78910 1992-026-01 EXP PLANTSKYDD RIPARIAN SPRAY 2018 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/2018 04/2018 Issued 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) 04/2018 04/2018 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 05/2018 05/2018 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) 06/2018 06/2018 Issued 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) 08/2018 08/2018 Closed 3 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
79751 1992-026-01 EXP BIOP SHEEP CREEK RESTORATION - TU Trout Unlimited (TU) 08/2018 08/2018 Issued 9 0 2 0 4 6 33.33% 0
79905 REL 1 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW DESIGN SERVICES Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/2018 09/2018 Issued 8 1 1 0 2 4 50.00% 0
80100 1992-026-01 EXP CATHERINE CREEK RED MILL REACH RESTORATION Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/2018 09/2018 Closed 8 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
81778 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI SMALL STREAMS RESTORATION 2019-20 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/2019 04/2019 Issued 4 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
81779 1992-026-01 EXP UGR HWI WOODLEE RESTORATION 2019-20 US Forest Service (USFS) 04/2019 04/2019 Issued 5 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
74313 REL 54 1992-026-01 EXP CC STATE PARK FISH HABITAT RESTORATION Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 04/2019 04/2019 Issued 6 0 0 0 9 9 0.00% 0
74017 REL 51 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA (TAMKALIKS): SIDE CHANNEL-WETLAND COMPLEX Nez Perce Tribe 05/2019 05/2019 Issued 6 1 8 0 0 9 100.00% 0
83066 1992-026-01 EXP ELMER DAM FISH PASSAGE DESIGN - 15% Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/2019 09/2019 Issued 4 2 1 0 0 3 100.00% 0
73982 REL 79 1992-026-01 EXP LONGLEY MEADOWS Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/2019 09/2019 Issued 4 1 5 0 1 7 85.71% 0
79905 REL 5 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA MCDANIELS PH 3 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/2019 09/2019 Issued 4 1 7 0 0 8 100.00% 0
84586 1992-026-01 EXP UGR CHICKEN CREEK HEADWATERS SMALL STREAMS US Forest Service (USFS) 03/2020 03/2020 Issued 2 0 6 0 0 6 100.00% 0
84321 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PROJECT DESIGN Trout Unlimited (TU) 03/2020 03/2020 Issued 2 2 1 0 0 3 100.00% 0
84585 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER LIMBER JIM RESTORATION PH 2 US Forest Service (USFS) 03/2020 03/2020 Issued 2 0 5 0 0 5 100.00% 0
84573 1992-026-01 EXP LOWER FLY CREEK RESTORATION US Forest Service (USFS) 03/2020 03/2020 Issued 2 0 5 0 0 5 100.00% 0
79905 REL 7 1992-026-01 EXP GRMW TECHNICAL ASSSESSMENT AND PLANNING Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 06/2020 06/2020 Issued 1 0 8 0 1 9 88.89% 0
85397 1992-026-01 EXP WALLOWA RV WILSON HAUN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Trout Unlimited (TU) 07/2020 07/2020 Issued 1 0 3 0 0 3 100.00% 0
79905 REL 8 1992-026-01 EXP UGR BOWMAN OFF SITE WATER DEVELOPMENT Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86096 1992-026-01 EXP MIDDLE UPPER GRANDE RONDE BOULDER ADDITION Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85944 1992-026-01 EXP LITTLE CREEK DIVERSIONS 5 /6 TECH ASSISTANCE Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85908 1992-026-01 EXP FREE WILLOW/LOWER WILLOW CK FISH PASSAGE Union County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86083 1992-026-01 EXP INDIAN CREEK CONNECTIVITY PH 1 RECONNECT HABITAT Trout Unlimited (TU) 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86147 1992-026-01 EXP E FORK GRANDE RONDE UPPER FLY CK SMALL STREAM US Forest Service (USFS) 09/2020 09/2020 Signature 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86183 1992-026-01 EXP LOSTINE WOLF WELTLAND HABITAT Nez Perce Tribe 09/2020 09/2020 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 780 967 79 2 183 1231 84.97% 21


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: 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 Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Steele Supervisor Grande Ronde Model Watershed Foundation
Travis Kessler Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
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