Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1995-060-01 - Isqúulktpe Watershed Project Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1995-060-01 - Isqúulktpe Watershed Project
Project Number:
1995-060-01
Title:
Isqúulktpe Watershed Project
Summary:
The CTUIR developed the Isqúulktpe Watershed Project under the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, beginning in 1995. (Note: In 2009, the spelling of the project title was changed from Iskuulpa to Isqúulktpe.) The purpose of the project is to offset habitat losses from, and provide in-kind mitigation for, the impacts of construction and operation of the John Day and McNary hydroelectric projects.

The Isqúulktpe Creek watershed is a fifth-order subbasin located in the Umatilla River Basin, encompassing approximately 24,200 acres. Located on the western slopes of the Blue Mountains in Oregon, Isqúulktpe (formerly known as Squaw) Creek, drains into the Umatilla River upstream of Pendleton, Oregon. Topography of the Isqúulktpe Watershed is typical of the Blue Mountain foothills, with broad flat ridges dissected by steep canyons with a variety of aspects. The project area contains approximately 958 acres of floodplain riparian habitat, 8,042 acres of grasslands, 4,898 acres of forest environments and 1,409 acres of upland shrub. The project area also contains 7 miles of anadromous and resident fish habitat.

Habitats within the 24,200 acre watershed provide approximately 3,832 habitat units of protection credits for seven target mitigation species. HEP species include mule deer, mink, western meadowlark, downy woodpecker, yellow warbler, great-blue heron and dusky (blue) grouse. Protection and enhancement of habitat within the watershed provides dual benefits to fish and wildlife by: 1) providing perpetual protection of watershed resources, 2) enhancing habitats to provide partial mitigation, and 3) improving natural salmonid habitat and production.

Project activities include: 1) Planning and Design; 2) Construction and Implementation; 3) Operations and Maintenance; and 4) Monitoring and Evaluation. Many of the major tasks are annual in nature, and contribute to on-going protection of the wildlife area. Management efforts are designed to protect, enhance, and mitigate target wildlife mitigation species, promote watershed health, and nurture self sustaining ecosystems. The Project emphasizes two principle strategies for acquiring, protecting, and enhancing habitat to meet these purposes: fee acquisitions; and the leasing of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administered grazing allotments, and resting them from livestock use:

Habitat Acquisition (1997, 1998, and 1999):
Approximately 6000 acres have been purchased for fish and wildlife mitigation and placed into permanent protection. (Other federal, non-governmental, and tribal funding has been used to secure fee title to properties within the watershed, in addition to BPA-funded acquisitions). These land holdings are all managed to protect and support grassland, forest, and riparian wetland habitats.

1997 Approximately 5,536 acres of land in the Iskuulpa Creek subbasin purchased to form the nucleus of the Squaw Creek Watershed Project. Additionally, 1,005 acres of BIA-administered Trust land was incorporated into the project.
1998 Acquired an additional 320 acres of fee lands. Initiated passive restoration of riparian and grassland habitats through lease/rest of two BIA-administered grazing units - lease totals approx. 20,000 acres and 1,056 AUMs.
1999 Acquired an additional 80 acres of land. Administratively closed 16.3 miles of road to protect fish and wildlife habitats.

Grazing leases purchase (initiated in 1998):
2 BIA-administered grazing allotments, containing approximately 11,500 acres and providing approximately 1,056 animal unit months (AUMs), are leased annually. The acres rested from livestock grazing include important grassland, riparian wetland, and in-stream habitats. The leasehold of grazing rights supports ongoing enhancement activities, and protects these habitats from further degradation.

The Isqúulktpe Creek Watershed project area includes three classes of land ownership; 1) fee lands, 2) CTUIR Tribal Trust lands, and 3) CTUIR-member allotments. The 1997 Memorandum of Agreement between BPA and the CTUIR differentiates how BPA receives mitigation credit for lands acquired in fee, and leased lands. For fee lands acquired as mitigation through the Fish and Wildlife Program, BPA receives full credit for acquisition, protection and enhancement. For leased lands (e.g. grazing leases), BPA receives full credit for protecting habitat units (HUs) of rangeland species affected by grazing, and full credit for habitat improvements to all habitats in the leased area.

Land acquisitions protected an estimated 4,567 baseline HUs for target wildlife species. An additional estimated 393 HUs could be achieved through habitat enhancements developed over the 10-year period of the Isqúulktpe Management Plan. Estimated total benefit of the project expressed through HUs is 4,960 units.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1995
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Umatilla 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Salmonids
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

Cover photo

Figure Name: Cover

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Location of the Isqúulktpe Watershed, Umatilla County, Oregon.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 4

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Equipment used to mechanically remove blackberry in Isquulktpe Creek.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 13

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Blackberry patches immediately after mechanical removal.

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 13

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 1. Photo taken from the east side of creek looking downstream (north), at 9:45am. Bearing from photo point to pole is 334 degrees. Photo A was taken in 2008.

Figure Name: Figure 7a

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 20

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 1. Photo taken from the east side of creek looking downstream (north), at 9:45am. Bearing from photo point to pole is 334 degrees. Photo B was taken in 2009.

Figure Name: Figure 7b

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 20

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 2. Photo taken from the east side of the creek looking upstream (south), at 11:00am. Angle iron is on an eroding grassy bluff, away from the edge in high grass. Bearing from photo point to pole is 246 degrees. Photo A was taken in 2008.

Figure Name: Figure 8a

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 21

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 2. Photo taken from the east side of the creek looking upstream (south), at 11:00am. Angle iron is on an eroding grassy bluff, away from the edge in high grass. Bearing from photo point to pole is 246 degrees. Photo B was taken in 2009.

Figure Name: Figure 8b

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 21

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

A series of pictures from blackberry photo point number 1, view to the south. Pictures were taken immediately before and after mechanical control of blackberries and in fall, after blackberries had begun to resprout.

Figure Name: Figure A1

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 26

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

A series of pictures from blackberry photo point number 1, view to the north. Pictures were taken immediately before and after mechanical control of blackberries and in fall, after blackberries had begun to resprout.

Figure Name: Figure A2

Document ID: P117193

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project, 2009 - 2010

Page Number: 27

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 46092

Himalayan blackberry photo point 1. Photos taken before and after mechanical control of blackberries in 2009. (View to the south, December 2011)

Figure Name: Figure 6d

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 18

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Location of medusahead pilot restoration sites.

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 20

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Cover photo

Figure Name: Cover

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 1

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Location of the Isqúulktpe Watershed, Umatilla County, Oregon.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 7

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Weed locations and survey transects.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 13

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 1. (2008)

Figure Name: Figure 3a

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 15

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Location of native grass seeding in Himalayan blackberry treatment sites.

Figure Name: Figure 9

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 22

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 1. (2009)

Figure Name: Figure 3b

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 15

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 1. (2010)

Figure Name: Figure 3c

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 15

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 1. (2011)

Figure Name: Figure 3d

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 15

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 2. (2008)

Figure Name: Figure 4a

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 16

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 2. (2009)

Figure Name: Figure 4b

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 16

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 2. (2010)

Figure Name: Figure 4c

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 16

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Viper’s bugloss monitoring photo point 2. (2011)

Figure Name: Figure 4d

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 16

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Himalayan blackberry photo point 1. Photos taken before and after mechanical control of blackberries in 2009. (View to the north, July 2009)

Figure Name: Figure 6a

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 18

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Himalayan blackberry photo point 1. Photos taken before and after mechanical control of blackberries in 2009. (View to the north, December 2011)

Figure Name: Figure 6b

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 18

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656

Himalayan blackberry photo point 1. Photos taken before and after mechanical control of blackberries in 2009. (View to the south, July 2009)

Figure Name: Figure 6c

Document ID: P125357

Document: Isqúulktpe Watershed Project; 2/10 - 1/12

Page Number: 18

Project: 1995-060-01

Contract: 51656


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $230,605 $280,241 $215,978 $215,978 $193,798

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $280,241 $215,978 $215,978 $193,798
FY2017 (Current) $283,943 $283,943 $315,155 $315,155 $149,666

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $283,943 $315,155 $315,155 $149,666
FY2018 (Next) $243,681 $243,681 $243,681 $243,681 $0

Post 2018 – Umatilla $243,681 $243,681 $243,681 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Jun-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $200,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2016 Expense $37,737 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2016 Expense $7,132 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY13-17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 07/19/2012
FY2016 Expense $49,636 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (WS, CTUIR) 11/2/2015 11/06/2015
FY2017 Expense $200,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2017 Expense $43,681 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $7,018 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY12 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 01/26/2012
FY2017 Expense $7,310 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY13-17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 07/19/2012
FY2017 Expense $57,392 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (WS, CTUIR) 11/2/2015 11/06/2015
FY2017 Expense $2,802 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Add funding to CTUIR FY17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 02/24/2016
FY2017 Expense $62,660 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (**Various**) 11/30/2016 12/01/2016
FY2017 Expense $62,660 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (**Various**) 11/30/2016 12/01/2016
FY2018 Expense $243,681 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 0 %
FY2011 0 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 11 %
FY2008 2 %
FY2007 3 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
73982 REL 10 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1995-060-01 EXP ISQUULKTPE WATERSHED AREA: PROTECT AND ENHANCE Issued $315,155 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:11
On time:9
Status Reports
Completed:51
On time:35
Avg Days Late:2

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
6639 21335, 26180, 31108, 36562, 40999, 46092, 51656, 60770, 64530, 68412, 71632, 73982 REL 10 1995-060-01 COLUMBIA BASIN F&W MITIGATION, SQUAW CREEK WATERSHED Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 05/2000 05/2000 Pending 51 123 14 0 5 142 96.48% 4
Project Totals 51 123 14 0 5 142 96.48% 4


Review: Wildlife Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-060-01-ISRP-20090618
Project: 1995-060-01 - Isqúulktpe Watershed Project
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The sponsors’ response addressed the ISRP’s concerns. The sponsors provided a point-by-point response to ISRP comments, most of which were related to monitoring the effectiveness of the riparian habitat restoration measures that are being implemented at this site.

The response explains that the primary focus of the Iskuulpa Watershed Project is terrestrial habitat-based, and aquatic habitat and fish monitoring are not a responsibility directly associated with this project. However, these elements are being monitored by other organizations. Monitoring fish populations is conducted by the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project. Aquatic habitat methods developed by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife were used to inventory aquatic habitat as part of the Umatilla Anadromous Fisheries Habitat Project. Coordination of the Iskuulpa Watershed Project with the natural production monitoring project and the fish habitat project is clearly explained in the response. The project sponsors are to be commended for the close coordination between their project and those teams that are conducting the riparian and aquatic work.

Trends in vegetation since the inception of this project have been monitored using only qualitative information including riparian photo points and observations of project staff. This information suggests that riparian vegetation is improving. Quantitative vegetative trend data are not available but are necessary to evaluate project effectiveness and inform adaptive management. Some remote-methods are available that can provide quantitative data on riparian vegetation. Infra-red aerial photography could be useful in monitoring shrub recovery in riparian areas with minimal field verification. Information also can be obtained from regular color aerial photography.

The sponsors note that HEP data collection is scheduled to be repeated in 2012, enabling evaluation of long-term trends in vegetation on transects established in 1999 and 2000. To be clear, the ISRP does not view HEP as a monitoring tool; HEP is an accounting tool for estimating mitigation credits. However, supplementary analysis of the field data collected for the HEP models can provide an indication of changes in some habitat conditions over time. Such may be the case with the vegetation transect data to be collected in 2012 for Iskuulpa. It is not clear if the established HEP transects are fully representative of the conditions occurring in the Iskuulpa watershed. If not, this deficiency could easily be addressed by establishing additional vegetation transects. These transects should be re-measured more frequently in the future. In particular, grassland transects can vary greatly year-to year with changes in precipitation. These changes can be orders of magnitude greater than any response to a management action. Therefore, determining effectiveness of a management action will require an understanding of the influence of precipitation. Once data has been collected over a range of precipitation levels (particularly spring precipitation), it will be possible to differentiate the response to project actions from those related to variation in climate.

Although a more rigorous scheme of vegetation monitoring will greatly enhance the ability of the project sponsors to determine project effectiveness, the ultimate measure is the response of the wildlife species that the project is intended to enhance. The ISRP encourages the project sponsors to consider including wildlife population evaluation of wildlife responses to the Iskuulpa project. Because of the expense of such an effort, it might be best accomplished by partnering across several projects in the region that are attempting to restore habitats comparable to those at Iskuulpa. The monitoring of wildlife population responses would be conducted at a subset of these sites, but all sites would apply similar treatments and vegetation/habitat monitoring. For example, such collaboration could be a very efficient way to begin to quantitatively address the broader issues of grazing effects on wildlife and restoration of terrestrial and aquatic habitats damaged by livestock.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This project is especially significant in that this watershed contains habitats of considerable significance for several species, including summer steelhead. Results from M&E efforts in the watershed should be reported, including:

1. a summary of vegetative trends;
2. more detail on survey methods for monitoring fish habitat to determine how sensitive to habitat change these surveys may be;
3. more detail on spawner or redd surveys of the fish spawning in Iskuulpa Creek;
4. more explanation of coordination with other projects doing M&E is needed. For example, relationship to the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project 1990-005-01, could be expanded, e.g., explain the M&E plan and how benefits of activities accomplished by the Iskuulpa project will be quantified, and how the results of M & E are used to adapt to new, innovative habitat maintenance and restoration procedures.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The justification, significance and relationship to other restoration projects in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin are appropriate for this project. The proposal asks for ongoing support to continue the implementation of a restoration effort being implemented at a watershed scale. This project is especially significant in that this watershed contains habitats of considerable significance for several species, including summer steelhead. However, the proposal did not present the results of their M&E efforts in the watershed. The justification for the project would be much stronger if this was provided.

2. Project History and Results
This project was initiated in 1994, and considerable progress has been made since then both in terms of extending protection to additional lands through acquisition or lease and enhancing the quality of habitat on lands previously secured. Although the project sponsors do not have the budget to conduct a comprehensive assessment of project results, they have used the monitoring resources at their disposal to implement an effective program to evaluate the results of their restoration efforts in the watershed (see comments below related to the monitoring elements of the project).

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
In general the objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for this project. Many of the activities for which the project sponsors are seeking funding involve the continuation of activities that are intended to maintain and improve project elements previously implemented. Continuing these activities is critical to the long-term success of the project. Maintaining fences, ensuring that noxious weeds are controlled and controlling recreational activities within the watershed are all necessary actions to ensure continued improvement of watershed conditions. The sponsors are encouraged to continue investigating new techniques to accomplish, reduce, or eliminate maintenance and operations tasks over the long term. The review team applauds the use of integrated pest management strategies and the use of local sources of plant materials for restoration activities.

4. M&E
The M&E effort is very commendable, given the relatively low level of funding dedicated to this activity. Most monitoring of riparian and upland vegetation work is provided by fixed photopoints. This technique is appropriate for providing a qualitative indication of plant response. There also appears to be some quantitative data available on the vegetation from the ecological reconnaissance plots. A summary of vegetative trends should be provided in a response.

The monitoring of fish habitat is based on results of surveys conducted in 1994 and 2008. Not enough detail was provided on survey methods to determine how sensitive to habitat change these surveys may be. More detail on survey methods and results should be provided in a response. More frequent re-surveys would be valuable to provide a better indication of how rapidly stream habitat responds to the application of a given restoration action. As one of the objectives of the watershed restoration project is the reduction of fine sediment and water temperature, it was surprising that some monitoring of these parameters has not been included. Determining temporal changes in temperatures and sediment levels can require significant effort, which may be beyond the monitoring resources for this project, but would be very valuable additions to the monitoring plan for the Iskuulpa Creek watershed. Spawner or redd surveys on the creek were mentioned only very briefly in the section on relationships with other projects. More detail on what these surveys have found regarding the fish spawning in Iskuulpa Creek should be provided in a response.

More explanation of coordination with other projects doing M&E is needed. For example, relationship to the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project 1990-005-01, could be expanded; e.g., explain the M&E plan and how benefits of activities accomplished by the Iskuulpa project will be quantified, and how the results of M & E are used to adapt to new, innovative habitat maintenance and restoration procedures.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-060-01-NPCC-20091217
Project: 1995-060-01 - Isqúulktpe Watershed Project
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Accord Project. Programmatic issue # 2-3
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) - interaction between wildlife crediting and monitoring
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) participation funding
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1995-060-01-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1995-060-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M, acquisition of BIA grazing leases, for fish & wildlife habitat mitigation; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-060-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1995-060-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1995-060-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1995-060-01 - Isqúulktpe Watershed Project
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proposal is well organized and written. The proposal clearly states the logical need to provide and maintain habitat in the Iskuulpa Creek Watershed that includes interior grassland, riparian wetland, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer. Enhancements designed to address limiting factors to fish production, such as reduction of stream temperatures and fine sediment, are clearly explained and tied to the Umatilla Subbasin plan. Past results are documented with benefit to fish and wildlife noted.

The proposed project will benefit focal species. Biologically measurable outcomes are identified where possible. Monitoring and evaluation is provided by a directly related project. These benefits may persist over the long-term if human disturbances can be controlled. The project would benefit from a better discussion of possible impact of habitat restoration on non-focal species. Also, the project sponsor should identify the metric to be used for evaluating bird community response.

Sharing of personnel and equipment with other projects is commendable. Collaboration with others involved in similar projects outside the subbasin should be explored. Information transfer, in addition to annual reports, should be considered and described. For example, strategies for sharing successes and lessons learned with other teams in the region could be considered information transfer.

See ISRP comments on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1995-060-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1995-060-01 - Isqúulktpe Watershed Project
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Andre L'Heureux Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Carl Scheeler Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Julie Burke Administrative Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Scott Peckham Project Lead Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Lindsay Chiono Technical Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Eric Quaempts Interested Party Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Dan Gambetta Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration