The CTUIR Grande Ronde Watershed Restoration project has been a major player in the restoration of the Grande Ronde River basin for several decades. They have worked effectively with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Umbrella project, CRITFC, ODFW, and other land managers in the basin. Overall, the ISRP recognizes that the CTUIR has a productive program, one that has successfully implemented important projects, effectively developed many collaborations, and met significant challenges. The project’s strengths are their leadership in GRMW, their many partnerships (CRITFC, ODFW, Bureau of Reclamation, and others) and their integration of science and Tribal processes in project review and adaptation.

Additionally, the ISRP appreciates the links to outreach materials as well as the time and attention that CTUIR invested in preparing an easily understood proposal. However, the proposal lacks quantitative objectives for the physical activities, justification for other objectives, and clarity on the quality and application of monitoring data in documenting benefits for fish and wildlife.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and workplans. Because of the importance of the proposal as a guiding document for the project, we encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to reflect these additions, but the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

1. Use of monitoring data. The project cooperates with CTUIR Grande Ronde RME project (200708300) and Biomonitoring Project (200901400) to monitor the physical and biological outcomes of restoration actions. How are the data collected under those projects used by this project? How useful are the data collected by these projects in informing the benefits of restoration actions? What process is used when the monitoring data are discovered to be inadequate or otherwise unusable for the project’s purposes?

2. Benefits to fish and wildlife. The proponents need to provide a summary of how fish populations are responding to the restoration actions. A few preliminary analyses (e.g., abundance, growth rates, survivorship) would be helpful with the understanding that full documentation will be forthcoming in the near future as part of the revised Grande Ronde synthesis.

3. SMART objectives. Overall, the proponents’ restoration projects are guided by River Vision, First Foods, Upland Vision, and the Atlas process. The proposal includes a general qualitative description of their objectives for restoration projects (Table 8 in proposal), but the proponents should develop SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for the physical restoration projects to provide more specific desired outcomes for the associated overall objectives listed in Table 8. These SMART objectives should clarify the desired/achievable future outcomes and relate specific restoration actions to those outcomes.

4. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. We ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The project is guided by a broad goal to protect, enhance, restore resources for First Foods, but the proposal does not identify quantitative/SMART objectives for the physical actions. Table 8 (page 14) provides an outline of the physical features being targeted as well as the action and criteria for monitoring the projects but does not provide targets or timelines for these objectives. For example, how much protected acreage is expected to be achieved over the next project period? Table 9 (page 35) provides a very clear outline of what actions are planned for six projects under the next funding period, though it is not related to outcomes.

Q2: Methods

Methods for planning, design, monitoring, collaboration/coordination, and outreach are based on established best practices at the local and broader levels. All are widely accepted and appropriate. In some cases, the proponents are using state-of-the-art technology and database management.

The CTUIR Grande Ronde Watershed Restoration project has participated in the development of the Atlases for Catherine Creek, upper Grande Ronde, and Wallowa/Imnaha rivers. These Atlases provide spatially explicit information and processes for evaluating habitat conditions at landscape scales, prioritizing restoration alternatives, and designing restoration actions with the greatest landscape level benefit. Incorporation of the First Foods Policy into the evaluation and prioritization process provides an important integration of Tribal values and traditional ecological knowledge. The project participates extensively in the development of restoration actions throughout the Grande Ronde River basin and is a critical partner in the collective efforts to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program.

The proposal describes the overall approach and also gives a detailed description of methods used for project planning and design, construction and implementation, measurement of effectiveness, and data management. These methods are also documented in previous reports and planning documents. The project has more than 25 years of experience in implementing restoration actions and working with collaborators. The project design process has been developed in close coordination with BPA. As well, the project provides an explicit list and details of upcoming projects for 2023 to 2027.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal describes multiple processes for reviewing and guiding the project, which incorporate both western science and Tribal processes. In addition to applying the Atlas process as the basis for integrating science and adapting the program, CTUIR also has multiple additional processes that support evaluating and steering the project. These processes include the engagement of the CTUIR Board of Trustees in program-level decision making, an annual open house that includes the CTUIR Department of Natural Resources and the broader Tribal community, the application of the Riverine Ecosystem Planning Approach for steering the Fisheries Habitat Program, and a semi-annual three-day meeting for supervisors, biologists, and technicians in the Fisheries Habitat Program to review communication, coordination, and technical processes. While the interactions between these processes are not entirely clear and not reflected in a concisely described adaptive management program, the summary demonstrates that multiple mechanisms are in place for evaluating the project and for using science and Tribal priorities to guide decision making.

This project benefits from the data collected by CTUIR's two monitoring projects, the CTUIR Grande Ronde RME project (200708300) and Biomonitoring Project (200901400), as well as through their participation in the GRMW. The project also coordinates with the Action Effectiveness Monitoring Program to follow the effectiveness of their restoration projects, with several of the AEM sites located within the project area. Monitoring includes multiple dimension of the salmonid life cycle (e.g., adult and juvenile abundance, pre-spawn and parr survival, SAR, redd density), as well as various high-resolution measures of the physical habitat. However, the proposal did not provide clear indication of how those data are being used to evaluate the benefit of, or adjustment needs for, the work being conducted. The ISRP recognizes another project (Project 200708300) is responsible for processing the biological data. However, the inclusion of some of those data, a brief summary of the plan for analyzing those data, and a clear explanation for how those data are used to inform the restoration actions would have been valuable in this proposal.

The proposal thoroughly describes potential confounding factors and the CTUIR’s actions to address the consequences of these factors. It uses regional temperature information and the 2015 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Aboriginal Titled lands to provide a quantitative framework for addressing the effects of climate change. The proponents use conceptual frameworks, such as process-based restoration, to guide them, and apply the results of CRITFC’s models for the Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek watersheds. This project also has been a major player in the collective efforts of the Grande Ronde partners to understand potential causes of mortality observed in the lower reaches and in the State Ditch. The proponents are investigating hydrological and contaminant related factors that could be responsible. They are leaders in floodplain restoration and reconnection in the basin. In addition, the project works closely with the local weed control agency to remove invasive plants.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Since the 2013 ISRP review, the project has successfully acquired fee titles and sponsored watershed projects on 4,135 acres of permanent habitat conservation (fee title acquisitions and permanent easements), 606 acres of term conservation easements, 348 acres of floodplain reconnection, 14 river miles of habitat restoration/ enhancement, creation/enhancement of 248 large and small pools, and over 400 miles of fish passage improvement. Restoration actions from 2014 to 2021 have reconnected 455 acres of floodplain habitat, protected 1,083 acres of floodplain, upland, and riparian areas through conservation easements, restored 157 acres of floodplain and riparian habitat planted with over 47,000 native trees and shrubs, restored 13.5 miles of main channels, constructed 8 miles of side channels, created or enhanced 147 large main channel pools, created or enhanced 74 side channel pools, and installed 589 large wood structures. Detailed outcomes are described for six major projects and several smaller projects.

The proposal does not translate these actions into potential benefits for fish and wildlife but instead points to other regional studies, such as AEM, that demonstrate the importance of these actions for fish and wildlife. To some degree, the project’s contributions in the Grande Ronde basin are represented in the recent report by White et al. 2021. Nevertheless, given that CTUIR is one of the few projects with an RM&E program capable of tracking fish response, some indication of the benefit of these substantial efforts should be available and included in the proposal, as well as used in guiding project decision processes.

A serious bottleneck to salmonid recovery is resolution of the State Ditch issue. The diversion resulted in an approximate 35-mile reach, once occupied by both the Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek (which is currently occupied by Catherine Creek), of entrenched, low gradient flow with generally poor habitat complexity, winter icing, and potentially high predation rates. The proponents are working with those seeking a solution, but resolution may not occur soon.

Additionally, predation of salmonids by both aquatic and terrestrial native and non-native species and the effects on juvenile salmonid mortality have not been evaluated comprehensively in the basin. The Bureau of Reclamation has a proposal to investigate predation, which is expected to be presented to the Valley Subgroup for further development in the near future. The objective is to determine current status of predation, potential effects on mortality, and possible remedial actions.

Agricultural chemicals and transportation, and urban generated pollutants, remain potential confounding factors that are largely unquantified and poorly understood in terms of the potential effects on aquatic productivity and fishery resources. Pollutants have been identified as a potential source and confounding factor associated with Chinook salmon smolt mortality. While the GRMW initiated a water quality assessment in 2019 to evaluate pollutants and toxic chemical presence in Catherine Creek, the evaluations are not complete. The ISRP encourages the proponents to put their support behind initiatives to better characterize pollutants in the Grande Ronde valley and their consequences for juvenile salmonids.

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.

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

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:

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.

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

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: