View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Province | Subbasin | % |
---|---|---|
Blue Mountain | Grande Ronde | 100.00% |
|
Description: Page: 11 Figure 1: UPPER GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN VICINITY AND PROJECT LOCATIONS Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1332 x 1799 Description: Page: 46 Photo 1: Wallowa River McDaniels Photo Point #3A - Pre-Project 7/31/2007 (Left); Post-Project 8/16/2011 (Right) Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1918 x 729 Description: Page: 47 Photo 2a: Meadow Creek Habberstad Photo Point #1 - Pre-Project 4/14/2009 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 948 x 727 Description: Page: 47 Photo 2b: Meadow Creek Habberstad Photo Point #1 - Post-Project 8/4/2009 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 954 x 731 Description: Page: 47 Photo 2c: Meadow Creek Habberstad Photo Point #1 - High Water 6/3/2010 (Left); Post (January) Ice Flow 6/9/2011 (Right) Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1897 x 728 Description: Page: 47 Photo 3a: McCoy Creek Tipperman Photo Point #4 - Pre-Project 9/27/2010 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1002 x 723 Description: Page: 47 Photo 3b: McCoy Creek Tipperman Photo Point #4 - Post-Project 8/17/2011 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 947 x 714 Description: Page: 48 Photo 4: Meadow Creek Cunha Photo Point #1 - Pre-Project 7/27/2010 (Left); Post-Project 8/15/2011 (Right) Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1903 x 666 Description: Page: 48 Photo 5a: Aerial Photo Points - Grande Ronde River Tailings Pre-Project 6/11/2009 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 908 x 681 Description: Page: 48 Photo 5b: Aerial Photo Points - Grande Ronde River Tailings Post-Project 4/20/2012 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 888 x 682 Description: Page: 48 Photo 6: Aerial Photo Points - Catherine Creek 37 Pre-Project 4/20/2012 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 921 x 614 Description: Page: 48 Photo 7: Aerial Photo Points - Willow Creek Pre-Project 4/20/2012 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 912 x 609 Description: Page: 49 Photo 8a: Aerial Photo Points - McCoy Creek 6/11/2009 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 909 x 682 Description: Page: 49 Photo 8b: Aerial Photo Points - McCoy Creek 4/20/2012 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 908 x 682 Description: Page: 49 Photo 9a: Aerial Photo Points - Longley Meadows/Bear Creek 6/11/2009 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 918 x 689 Description: Page: 49 Photo 9b: Aerial Photo Points - Longley Meadows/Bear Creek 4/20/2012 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 912 x 685 Description: Page: 49 Photo 10a: Aerial Photo Points - South Fork Willow Creek 6/11/2009 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 921 x 691 Description: Page: 49 Photo 10b: Aerial Photo Points - South Fork Willow Creek 4/20/2012 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 947 x 691 Description: Page: 50 Figure 20: MCCOY MEADOWS HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT VICINITY Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 2094 x 1347 Description: Page: 52 Figure 24: MCCOY MEADOWS PLANT ENCLOSURES Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1847 x 1243 Description: Page: 53 Figure 22: MCCOY MEADOWS JANUARY 2011 ICE EVENT SHOWING SIDE CHANNEL ‘A’ WITH THE TRIPLE CULVERT BLOCKED AND FLOWS GOING OVER MCINTYRE ROAD. FLOWS ARE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT IN THE PICTURE. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 2075 x 722 Description: Page: 53 Figure 23: MCCOY MEADOWS JANUARY 2011 ICE EVENT LOOKING UPSTREAM AT SIDE CHANNEL ‘A’ INTAKE (WOOD STRUCTURE IN MID PHOTO). MCCOY CREEK MAIN CHANNEL IS AT THE LEFT OF THE PICTURE. FLOW FOR THE SIDE CHANNEL IS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT IN THE PHOTO. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 2074 x 766 Description: Page: 54 Figure 27: CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN LAND ACQUISITION PLANNING Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1707 x 2276 Description: Page: 56 Photo 11: Willow Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement Project. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 2094 x 1397 Description: Page: 57 Photo 12: April 2012 aerial photo illustrates lower Willow Creek historic channel alignment planned for re-activation. Note channelized reach at right of photo. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1908 x 1273 Description: Page: 57 Photo 13: Lower project reach illustrating meandering stream channels and potential for high quality fish and wildlife habitat. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1771 x 592 Description: Page: 58 Figure 28: WILLOW CREEK FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 612 x 792 Description: Page: 59 Figure 29: MEADOW CREEK (HABBERSTAD) CREP BOUNDARY. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 2048 x 1324 Description: Page: 60 Photo 14: April 2012 aerial photo of lower Rock Creek. Note floodplain road, corrals, lack of vegetation, and simplified habitat along Rock Creek and its floodplain. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 2094 x 1397 Description: Page: 61 Photo 15: No caption provided. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1086 x 725 Description: Page: 62 Photo 16: No caption provided. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 827 x 741 Description: Page: 63 Figure 30: ROCK CREEK FISH HABITAT PROJECT. Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1779 x 2786 Description: Page: 65 Figure 31a: LANMAN CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT (WILLOW CREEK WATERSHED) - Pre-project Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1582 x 932 Description: Page: 65 Figure 31b: LANMAN CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT (WILLOW CREEK WATERSHED) - Post project condition (existing 36” culvert replaced with a 10’ boxed culvert). October 2011 Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1577 x 1030 Description: Page: 85 Figure A-6: Habitat Enhancement Site Locations Project: 1996-083-00 Document: P126648 Dimensions: 1892 x 2868 |
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
Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY2022 | Expense | $1,139,545 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 | 10/01/2018 |
FY2023 | Expense | $1,139,545 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Umatilla Tribe (CTUIR) 2023-2025 Accord Extension | 09/30/2022 |
FY2023 | Expense | $209,621 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Accord Transfers (CTUIR) 2/8/2023 | 02/08/2023 |
FY2024 | Expense | $1,168,034 | From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla | Umatilla Tribe (CTUIR) 2023-2025 Accord Extension | 09/30/2022 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
102 REL 1
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 MCINTYRE ROAD/MCCOY CREEK CROSSING | Terminated | $215,598 | 3/1/2000 - 12/31/2001 |
2662 REL 1
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-01 MCCOY MEADOWS WATERSHED RESTORATION | Terminated | $101,700 | 10/1/2000 - 12/31/2001 |
6229
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 MCINTYRE ROAD/MCCOY CREEK CROSSING | Closed | $745,709 | 1/1/2001 - 3/31/2005 |
4038
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-01 MCCOY MEADOWS WATERSHED RESTORATION | History | $61,522 | 3/20/2001 - 2/10/2003 |
22217
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION | History | $190,000 | 4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006 |
26835
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION | History | $189,996 | 4/1/2006 - 3/31/2007 |
32222
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION | Closed | $190,000 | 4/1/2007 - 3/31/2008 |
37002
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION | Closed | $432,524 | 4/1/2008 - 7/31/2009 |
42333
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRAND RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 09 | Closed | $503,483 | 5/1/2009 - 4/30/2010 |
47504
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRAND RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 10 | Closed | $595,829 | 5/1/2010 - 4/30/2011 |
53193
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 11 | Closed | $713,800 | 5/1/2011 - 4/30/2012 |
57028
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 12 | Closed | $958,181 | 5/1/2012 - 4/30/2013 |
61475
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 13 | Closed | $736,546 | 5/1/2013 - 4/30/2014 |
65847
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 14 | Closed | $1,364,608 | 5/1/2014 - 4/30/2015 |
69118
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 15 | Closed | $648,506 | 5/1/2015 - 4/30/2016 |
72551
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 16 | Closed | $1,654,191 | 5/1/2016 - 4/30/2018 |
73982 REL 48
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 18 | Closed | $1,407,767 | 5/1/2018 - 4/30/2019 |
73982 REL 75
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 2019 | Closed | $959,539 | 5/1/2019 - 4/30/2020 |
73982 REL 101
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 2020 | Issued | $1,111,582 | 5/1/2020 - 4/30/2021 |
73982 REL 135
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP CTUIR GRAND RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 2021 | Issued | $1,065,507 | 5/1/2021 - 4/30/2022 |
88559
![]() |
US Forest Service (USFS) | 1996-083-00 EXP LIMBER JIM CULVERT REPLACEMENT - FS | Issued | $253,781 | 9/1/2021 - 12/31/2022 |
73982 REL 161
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 22 | Issued | $1,139,545 | 5/1/2022 - 4/30/2023 |
CR-361875
![]() |
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 23 | Approved | $1,349,166 | 5/1/2023 - 4/30/2024 |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 20 |
Completed: | 15 |
On time: | 15 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 89 |
On time: | 22 |
Avg Days Late: | 22 |
Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
22217 | 26835, 32222, 37002, 42333, 47504, 53193, 57028, 61475, 65847, 69118, 72551, 73982 REL 48, 73982 REL 75, 73982 REL 101, 73982 REL 135, 73982 REL 161, CR-361875 | 1996-083-00 EXP BIOP CTUIR GRANDE RONDE SUBBASIN RESTORATION 23 | Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) | 04/01/2005 | 04/30/2024 | Approved | 84 | 253 | 11 | 0 | 47 | 311 | 84.89% | 3 |
88559 | 1996-083-00 EXP LIMBER JIM CULVERT REPLACEMENT - FS | US Forest Service (USFS) | 09/01/2021 | 12/31/2022 | Issued | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 75.00% | 0 | |
Project Totals | 89 | 256 | 11 | 0 | 48 | 315 | 84.76% | 3 |
Assessment Number: | 1996-083-00-NPCC-20230310 |
---|---|
Project: | 1996-083-00 - CTUIR Grand Ronde Watershed Restoration |
Review: | 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review |
Approved Date: | 4/15/2022 |
Recommendation: | Implement with Conditions |
Comments: |
Bonneville and Sponsor to address condition #1 (use of monitoring data), #2 (benefits), and #3 (objectives) in project documentation. See Policy Issue I.a. [Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/] |
Assessment Number: | 1996-083-00-NPCC-20131125 |
---|---|
Project: | 1996-083-00 - CTUIR Grand Ronde Watershed Restoration |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal: | GEOREV-1996-083-00 |
Proposal State: | Pending BPA Response |
Approved Date: | 11/5/2013 |
Recommendation: | Implement with Conditions |
Comments: | Implement through FY 2018: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews. Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring. |
Conditions: | |
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews. | |
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualifications #2—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews. | |
Council Condition #3 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #3—Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in future reviews. | |
Council Condition #4 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—Also see Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring. |
Assessment Number: | 1996-083-00-ISRP-20130610 |
---|---|
Project: | 1996-083-00 - CTUIR Grand Ronde Watershed Restoration |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal Number: | GEOREV-1996-083-00 |
Completed Date: | 6/11/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | 6/10/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The purpose of the CTUIR Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Project is to protect, enhance, and restore functional floodplain, and channel and watershed processes to provide sustainable, healthy habitat and water quality for aquatic species in the Grande Ronde River subbasin. The restoration approach is founded on the Tribal First Foods framework and River Vision which describes the physical and biological processes needed to provide First Foods. The River Vision and the five touchstones of hydrology, geomorphology, connectivity, riparian vegetation, and aquatic biota provide a reasonable and holistic conceptual framework for restoration. This approach is meaningful in that it ties habitat and fish restoration directly to Tribal cultural traditions. The proposal includes extensive justification for the program vision and objectives, and their significance to regional programs. Diagnosing factors limiting salmon production in priority geographic areas in the subbasin is an excellent component of the project. The proposal provides a clear description of how the Restoration Atlas process will be used to identify water transaction opportunities and to judge biological benefits and feasibility. However, no explanation is given for how the estimated potential benefit and feasibility measures will be combined to rank opportunities; such ranking can be tricky, and ideally, should be based on a risk assessment model to compute expected benefit per cost, where expected benefit = probability of achieving benefit (based on assessment of feasibility) x potential benefit. The sponsors have significantly improved the process for identification and selection of project sites where habitat enhancement will yield the greatest benefit to fish. This is particularly important because it advances and refines the procedure for site prioritization beyond that in the subbasin plans and it will be useful in selecting future project locations. The project is consistent with the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan and more recent federal, state, and Tribal planning documents. It has great significance to regional programs and, over time, developed strong working relationships with numerous partners. The sponsors appear to have the technical expertise to complete the proposed activities and demonstrate a willingness to improve their actions by continued learning from project results as well as from external training. Project objectives tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative, but timelines are defined, and actions are specified in quantitative terms. The objectives address the major factors limiting salmon and steelhead abundance in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Objectives relating to flow enhancement through acquisition of water rights and screening irrigation diversions were not given. If these factors are important in limiting fish production in the Grande Ronde, as they are in other subbasins, perhaps they should be addressed by this proposal. The sponsors stress the importance of monitoring and evaluation throughout the proposal. Considering the significance the sponsors place on M&E, perhaps a monitoring objective should be included in the proposal. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) The project has been operating for 16 years and has successfully completed a significant number of restoration actions. Past activities and results to date are described in detail in the proposal. The accomplishments and results, purely from a project implementation perspective, are impressive. Although some of the details might be questioned, the sponsors have done what they proposed. The 2006 ISRP review requested that (1) biological results be provided to demonstrate project effectiveness and (2) that monitoring and evaluation be described in greater detail. The ISRP urged that these recommendations be addressed for each enhancement project. The sponsors made a conscientious effort to respond to the ISRP’s recommendation and provided a detailed description of each project following the outline suggested by the ISRP. This effort, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate that the restoration actions are having widespread positive influences on freshwater survival, fish condition, or fish population abundance. The results in many cases appear to be untestable due to inadequate design or effectiveness monitoring, equivocal, or negative. After so many years of data collection, it should be possible to statistically test for fish responses. It seems that the before-after treatment approach was used in many cases, but there were few, if any, reference sites for temporal adjustment or comparison in specific years. Fish population parameters, temperature and other key variables will fluctuate from year-to-year depending on a number of external variables including annual ambient and ocean conditions, hence the need for reference sites. It appears that very little monitoring for biological benefits has been initiated or is proposed for new (“look forward”) projects. It is perhaps reasonable that some projects should be undertaken without expensive monitoring for biological benefits, relying instead on results from ISEMP’s Intensively Monitored Watersheds and CHaMP to assess overall outcomes based on habitat measures. However, the proposal does not describe a systematic process for deciding whether or not to monitor for biological benefits, or how outcomes would be extrapolated from other studies. A cost-effective strategy for monitoring biological benefits is very important given that these habitat interventions are expensive and enduring, and the biological benefits remain largely speculative at present. The sponsors should consider how hatchery operations are impacting fish survival, condition, and abundance in restored streams? This factor is not addressed in the monitoring protocols. Although project management appears to have adapted quickly and appropriately to experience gained over 16 years, this adaptation appears to have been passive rather than active. Adaptive management, as originally intended, requires intentional experimentation to acquire the knowledge needed to reduce key uncertainties with the goal of improving future decisions. Learning is certainly taking place for this project, but it is not as efficient as it could be if the adaptive management process was fully developed. Establishing quantitative hypotheses or goals and timelines for success, along with appropriate monitoring and evaluation, are needed to make adaptive management more efficient. The sponsors appear to have the skills and experience to establish reasonable and testable hypotheses or goals for individual as well as types of restoration actions. Evaluation of Results The primary goal of this project is to restore viable and harvestable salmon and other native resident fish through acquisition, leasing, and restoration of riparian and instream habitat within Tribal Ceded Territory. An important organizing framework for restoration is the First Foods concept which follows the serving order of foods in the Longhouse. Water is the foundation of First Foods, followed by salmon but also including Pacific lamprey, steelhead, trout, and whitefish. The significance of the First Food concept is that it ties watershed restoration to Tribal spiritual and cultural traditions. The project appears to be well-managed and organized. The accomplishments of this project since its inception are impressive. Accomplishments include implementation of habitat projects on 40 stream miles with 14 miles of riparian fencing, 16 water developments, installation of over 150,000 plants, and seeding over 850 acres. In cooperation with CREP and other organizations involved with land acquisition and leasing, conservation easements totaling about 2,800 acres were instituted. A particularly strong point of this project is cooperation and coordination with multiple partners within the subbasin. The sponsors clearly recognize the need for M&E. While some habitat monitoring has taken place, little fish monitoring has occurred and consequently the impact of 16 years of habitat enhancement on freshwater fish productivity is uncertain at this point in time. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work A strong point for the project is its relationships with other entities in the Grande Ronde Basin. The long history of this program attests to these successful relationships. This project works closely with CTUIR Ceded Area Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project and with numerous state and federal agencies. The sponsors concisely describe expected impacts of climate change on arid land streams. The proposal includes a good discussion of predicted trends and uncertainties associated with climate change, as well as consideration of strategies for coping with trends that are unfavorable to project objectives. While climate change is noted as an emerging limiting factor it could easily be argued that it is no longer an emerging factor. Climate change really started in the region about 1950 and the present phase of loss of late summer snowpack is thought to be completed around 2030. There are new modeling platforms available that the sponsors may wish to examine that give insights into future stream conditions. These modeling platforms may help guide restoration actions. Other “emerging limiting factors” or just limiting factors that received little attention in the proposal include non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals and land use. An important question is how the proposed restoration actions, especially the fish populations, will be affected by these factors. Or, how can the restoration actions help mitigate some of their ecological effects? The sponsors especially should give more thought to the non-native fish issue. In the Grande Ronde, warm water non-native fishes, which are already present in much of the subbasin, could become much more prevalent as climate change ensues and waters become warmer. An emphasis is needed on winter icing conditions. Most projects ignore this very important ecological driver of stream communities. It is gratifying to see mussels listed as species of concern, but nowhere in the proposal were they mentioned again. Mussels appear to be in serious decline in the region, and it would not be surprising if some species were proposed for listing in the next decade. It will be important to start collecting data on them now so as to be prepared for future restrictions. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The proposal includes a thorough and consistent explanation of the relationships between deliverables, work elements, metrics, and objectives. The deliverables identify specific projects that will be implemented and the enhancement actions that will be undertaken for each project. Deliverables 5-9 seem unnecessary because the activities they describe are already contained in Deliverables 14-22. Condition factors should be measured for juvenile salmonids in order to judge their vitality. Professional publications in refereed journals should be listed as a deliverable. It is important for large scale projects, like this one, to provide leadership in the broader restoration community. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org It is good to see that work elements 157 (Collect, generate, and validate field and lab data) links to CHaMP methods.
This is a strong project that can point to significant accomplishments in implementing habitat enhancement projects. The project has made substantial progress in project planning including identification of limiting factors and refinement of the project selection process. The sponsors could be providing leadership for some of the other local projects that are struggling to establish comprehensive, integrative, and successful programs. The following qualifications should be addressed during contracting or in future proposals and reports: |
|
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Ensure that the sponsors provide an adaptive management process that leads to more effective learning about implemented projects.
|
|
Qualification #2 - Qualifications #2
Ensure that the sponsors describe how restoration actions will help mitigate the ecological consequences of non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals and land use.
|
|
Qualification #3 - Qualification #3
Ensure that the sponsors provide monitoring information and analyses that address the issue as to whether the restoration actions are having an influence on fish survival, condition, and abundance.
|
|
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 purpose of the CTUIR Grande Ronde Fish Habitat Project is to protect, enhance, and restore functional floodplain, and channel and watershed processes to provide sustainable, healthy habitat and water quality for aquatic species in the Grande Ronde River subbasin. The restoration approach is founded on the Tribal First Foods framework and River Vision which describes the physical and biological processes needed to provide First Foods. The River Vision and the five touchstones of hydrology, geomorphology, connectivity, riparian vegetation, and aquatic biota provide a reasonable and holistic conceptual framework for restoration. This approach is meaningful in that it ties habitat and fish restoration directly to Tribal cultural traditions. The proposal includes extensive justification for the program vision and objectives, and their significance to regional programs. Diagnosing factors limiting salmon production in priority geographic areas in the subbasin is an excellent component of the project. The proposal provides a clear description of how the Restoration Atlas process will be used to identify water transaction opportunities and to judge biological benefits and feasibility. However, no explanation is given for how the estimated potential benefit and feasibility measures will be combined to rank opportunities; such ranking can be tricky, and ideally, should be based on a risk assessment model to compute expected benefit per cost, where expected benefit = probability of achieving benefit (based on assessment of feasibility) x potential benefit. The sponsors have significantly improved the process for identification and selection of project sites where habitat enhancement will yield the greatest benefit to fish. This is particularly important because it advances and refines the procedure for site prioritization beyond that in the subbasin plans and it will be useful in selecting future project locations. The project is consistent with the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan and more recent federal, state, and Tribal planning documents. It has great significance to regional programs and, over time, developed strong working relationships with numerous partners. The sponsors appear to have the technical expertise to complete the proposed activities and demonstrate a willingness to improve their actions by continued learning from project results as well as from external training. Project objectives tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative, but timelines are defined, and actions are specified in quantitative terms. The objectives address the major factors limiting salmon and steelhead abundance in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Objectives relating to flow enhancement through acquisition of water rights and screening irrigation diversions were not given. If these factors are important in limiting fish production in the Grande Ronde, as they are in other subbasins, perhaps they should be addressed by this proposal. The sponsors stress the importance of monitoring and evaluation throughout the proposal. Considering the significance the sponsors place on M&E, perhaps a monitoring objective should be included in the proposal. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) The project has been operating for 16 years and has successfully completed a significant number of restoration actions. Past activities and results to date are described in detail in the proposal. The accomplishments and results, purely from a project implementation perspective, are impressive. Although some of the details might be questioned, the sponsors have done what they proposed. The 2006 ISRP review requested that (1) biological results be provided to demonstrate project effectiveness and (2) that monitoring and evaluation be described in greater detail. The ISRP urged that these recommendations be addressed for each enhancement project. The sponsors made a conscientious effort to respond to the ISRP’s recommendation and provided a detailed description of each project following the outline suggested by the ISRP. This effort, however, was not sufficient to demonstrate that the restoration actions are having widespread positive influences on freshwater survival, fish condition, or fish population abundance. The results in many cases appear to be untestable due to inadequate design or effectiveness monitoring, equivocal, or negative. After so many years of data collection, it should be possible to statistically test for fish responses. It seems that the before-after treatment approach was used in many cases, but there were few, if any, reference sites for temporal adjustment or comparison in specific years. Fish population parameters, temperature and other key variables will fluctuate from year-to-year depending on a number of external variables including annual ambient and ocean conditions, hence the need for reference sites. It appears that very little monitoring for biological benefits has been initiated or is proposed for new (“look forward”) projects. It is perhaps reasonable that some projects should be undertaken without expensive monitoring for biological benefits, relying instead on results from ISEMP’s Intensively Monitored Watersheds and CHaMP to assess overall outcomes based on habitat measures. However, the proposal does not describe a systematic process for deciding whether or not to monitor for biological benefits, or how outcomes would be extrapolated from other studies. A cost-effective strategy for monitoring biological benefits is very important given that these habitat interventions are expensive and enduring, and the biological benefits remain largely speculative at present. The sponsors should consider how hatchery operations are impacting fish survival, condition, and abundance in restored streams? This factor is not addressed in the monitoring protocols. Although project management appears to have adapted quickly and appropriately to experience gained over 16 years, this adaptation appears to have been passive rather than active. Adaptive management, as originally intended, requires intentional experimentation to acquire the knowledge needed to reduce key uncertainties with the goal of improving future decisions. Learning is certainly taking place for this project, but it is not as efficient as it could be if the adaptive management process was fully developed. Establishing quantitative hypotheses or goals and timelines for success, along with appropriate monitoring and evaluation, are needed to make adaptive management more efficient. The sponsors appear to have the skills and experience to establish reasonable and testable hypotheses or goals for individual as well as types of restoration actions. Evaluation of Results The primary goal of this project is to restore viable and harvestable salmon and other native resident fish through acquisition, leasing, and restoration of riparian and instream habitat within Tribal Ceded Territory. An important organizing framework for restoration is the First Foods concept which follows the serving order of foods in the Longhouse. Water is the foundation of First Foods, followed by salmon but also including Pacific lamprey, steelhead, trout, and whitefish. The significance of the First Food concept is that it ties watershed restoration to Tribal spiritual and cultural traditions. The project appears to be well-managed and organized. The accomplishments of this project since its inception are impressive. Accomplishments include implementation of habitat projects on 40 stream miles with 14 miles of riparian fencing, 16 water developments, installation of over 150,000 plants, and seeding over 850 acres. In cooperation with CREP and other organizations involved with land acquisition and leasing, conservation easements totaling about 2,800 acres were instituted. A particularly strong point of this project is cooperation and coordination with multiple partners within the subbasin. The sponsors clearly recognize the need for M&E. While some habitat monitoring has taken place, little fish monitoring has occurred and consequently the impact of 16 years of habitat enhancement on freshwater fish productivity is uncertain at this point in time. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work A strong point for the project is its relationships with other entities in the Grande Ronde Basin. The long history of this program attests to these successful relationships. This project works closely with CTUIR Ceded Area Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project and with numerous state and federal agencies. The sponsors concisely describe expected impacts of climate change on arid land streams. The proposal includes a good discussion of predicted trends and uncertainties associated with climate change, as well as consideration of strategies for coping with trends that are unfavorable to project objectives. While climate change is noted as an emerging limiting factor it could easily be argued that it is no longer an emerging factor. Climate change really started in the region about 1950 and the present phase of loss of late summer snowpack is thought to be completed around 2030. There are new modeling platforms available that the sponsors may wish to examine that give insights into future stream conditions. These modeling platforms may help guide restoration actions. Other “emerging limiting factors” or just limiting factors that received little attention in the proposal include non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals and land use. An important question is how the proposed restoration actions, especially the fish populations, will be affected by these factors. Or, how can the restoration actions help mitigate some of their ecological effects? The sponsors especially should give more thought to the non-native fish issue. In the Grande Ronde, warm water non-native fishes, which are already present in much of the subbasin, could become much more prevalent as climate change ensues and waters become warmer. An emphasis is needed on winter icing conditions. Most projects ignore this very important ecological driver of stream communities. It is gratifying to see mussels listed as species of concern, but nowhere in the proposal were they mentioned again. Mussels appear to be in serious decline in the region, and it would not be surprising if some species were proposed for listing in the next decade. It will be important to start collecting data on them now so as to be prepared for future restrictions. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The proposal includes a thorough and consistent explanation of the relationships between deliverables, work elements, metrics, and objectives. The deliverables identify specific projects that will be implemented and the enhancement actions that will be undertaken for each project. Deliverables 5-9 seem unnecessary because the activities they describe are already contained in Deliverables 14-22. Condition factors should be measured for juvenile salmonids in order to judge their vitality. Professional publications in refereed journals should be listed as a deliverable. It is important for large scale projects, like this one, to provide leadership in the broader restoration community. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org It is good to see that work elements 157 (Collect, generate, and validate field and lab data) links to CHaMP methods.
This is a strong project that can point to significant accomplishments in implementing habitat enhancement projects. The project has made substantial progress in project planning including identification of limiting factors and refinement of the project selection process. The sponsors could be providing leadership for some of the other local projects that are struggling to establish comprehensive, integrative, and successful programs. The following qualifications should be addressed during contracting or in future proposals and reports: Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 2:09:52 PM. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1996-083-00-NPCC-20090924 |
---|---|
Project: | 1996-083-00 - CTUIR Grand Ronde Watershed Restoration |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
Recommendation: | Fund |
Comments: |
Assessment Number: | 1996-083-00-ISRP-20060831 |
---|---|
Project: | 1996-083-00 - CTUIR Grand Ronde Watershed Restoration |
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 sponsors have provided an excellent response to ISRP comments. CTUIR is carrying out a number of important projects. In spite of budget limitations, they are conducting reasonably comprehensive project-level monitoring in cooperation with various agencies and Oregon State University. A summary of results from three major projects were reported, although quantitative information was not provided. The projects appear to be progressing as planned. An excellent overview of specific project M&E needs was provided.
|
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1996-083-00-INLIEU-20090521 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 1996-083-00 |
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 watershed restoration activities; multiple other entities authorized/required to perform; need confirmation that screening or other criteria ensures that BPA not funding activities others are required to perform; need confirmation that cost share is sufficient. |
Assessment Number: | 1996-083-00-CAPITAL-20090618 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 1996-083-00 |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 2/27/2007 |
Capital Rating: | Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding |
Capital Asset Category: | None |
Comment: | None |
Name | Role | Organization |
---|---|---|
Allen Childs | Project Lead | Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) |
Jim Webster (Inactive) | Supervisor | Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) |
Tracy Hauser | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |
Tanya Harrison (Inactive) | Interested Party | Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) |
Julie Burke | Administrative Contact | Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) |
John Skidmore | Supervisor | Bonneville Power Administration |
Michael Lambert | Supervisor | Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) |
Thomas Delorenzo | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |
Anna Neuzil | Interested Party | Bonneville Power Administration |