Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2000-031-00 - Enhance Habitat in the North Fork John Day River Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2000-031-00 - Enhance Habitat in the North Fork John Day River
Project Number:
2000-031-00
Title:
Enhance Habitat in the North Fork John Day River
Summary:
See Contract Summary
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2000
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau John Day 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, Western Brook
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Restoration and Protection Site Locations.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 9

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints taken in 2004 (left) and 2010 (right) at the lower end of cross-section I.

Figure Name: Figure 6a

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 20

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints taken in 2004 (left) and 2010 (right) at the lower end of cross-section I.

Figure Name: Figure 6b

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 20

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Project Area denoted in Red with an inset and somewhat straightened channel below without apparent grade control stopping the head cut.

Figure Name: Figure 7

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 23

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints on Lower Snipe Creek taken in 2004 (left) and 2010 (right) looking upstream from the middle of the reach looking upstream (north).

Figure Name: Figure 9a

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 25

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints on Lower Snipe Creek taken in 2004 (left) and 2010 (right) looking upstream from the middle of the reach looking upstream (north).

Figure Name: Figure 9b

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 25

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints collected for the Deer Creek site during 2003 (left) and 2010 (right).

Figure Name: Figure 19a

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 44

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints collected for the Deer Creek site during 2003 (left) and 2010 (right).

Figure Name: Figure 19b

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 44

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photographs taken of the implementation site in 2007 (left) and 2010 (right).

Figure Name: Figure 22a

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 50

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints taken in 2004 (left) and 2010 (right) from SR 244 looking upstream. Note the cut-bank present in both photographs.

Figure Name: Figure 12a

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 31

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints taken in 2004 (left) and 2010 (right) from SR 244 looking upstream. Note the cut-bank present in both photographs.

Figure Name: Figure 12b

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 31

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints collected for the Camas Creek site from 2007 (left) and 2010 (right). Photographs were taken mid-way through the levee removal area looking down stream (west).

Figure Name: Figure 15a

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 36

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photopoints collected for the Camas Creek site from 2007 (left) and 2010 (right). Photographs were taken mid-way through the levee removal area looking down stream (west).

Figure Name: Figure 15b

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 36

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701

Photographs taken of the implementation site in 2007 (left) and 2010 (right).

Figure Name: Figure 22b

Document ID: P124949

Document: NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER BASIN ANADROMOUS FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Annual Report for April 2010 – January 2011

Page Number: 50

Project: 2000-031-00

Contract: 51701


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 *
FY2019 (Previous) $929,866 $929,866 $743,893 $694,583

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $929,866 $929,866 $743,893 $694,583
FY2020 (Current) $886,998 $886,998 $886,988 $1,072,961 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $886,998 $886,988 $1,072,961 $0
FY2021 (Next) $898,085 $898,085 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $898,085 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $886,998 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2019 Expense $42,868 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord Budget Transfers - CTUIR 7/25 07/25/2019
FY2020 Expense $886,998 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $898,085 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 $238,601 (Draft) 25 % (Draft)
2017 $5,000 (Draft) 1 % (Draft)
2016 $124,100 (Draft) 16 % (Draft)
2015 $27,500 5 %
2014 $182,000 23 %
2013 $52,550 7 %
2012 $88,600 12 %
2011 $105,750 19 %
2010 $67,700 13 %
2009 $90,650 19 %
2008 $147,950 32 %
2007 $80,000 24 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
119 REL 1 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2000-031-00 NORTH FORK JOHN DAY RIVER FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Terminated $205,544 6/1/2000 - 5/31/2001
73982 REL 11 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2000-031-00 EXP ENHANCE HABITAT N. FORK JOHN DAY RIVER Issued $762,378 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
73982 REL 65 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2000-031-00 EXP ENHANCE HABITAT N. FORK JOHN DAY RIVER Issued $929,866 2/1/2019 - 4/30/2020
CR-337206 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2000-031-00 EXP ENHANCE HABITAT N. FORK JOHN DAY RIVER Pending $886,988 5/1/2020 - 4/30/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):16
Completed:12
On time:12
Status Reports
Completed:61
On time:34
Avg Days Late:4

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
6613 22616, 27391, 32946, 37318, 42947, 46079, 51701, 56226, 60597, 64736, 68341, 71644, 73982 REL 11, 73982 REL 32, 73982 REL 65 2000-031-00 N. FORK JOHN DAY RIVER ANDROMOUS FISH HAB ENHANCEMENT Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 09/2001 09/2001 Pending 59 248 12 1 57 318 81.76% 19
46273 REL 56 2000-031-00 EXP ENHANCE N. FORK JOHN DAY RIVER - NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 01/2013 01/2013 Closed 2 2 0 0 0 2 100.00% 0
Project Totals 61 250 12 1 57 320 81.88% 19


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

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2000-031-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 2000-031-00 - Enhance Habitat in the North Fork John Day River
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2000-031-00
Proposal State: Proposal Vetted
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with condition through FY 2014: Sponsor to provide a revised proposal addressing ISRP qualifications, for ISRP review by May 1, 2014. Implementation beyond FY 2014 is conditioned on ISRP review and Council recommendation.
Publish Date: 02/14/2014 BPA Response: Agree
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Sponsor to provide a revised proposal addressing ISRP qualifications, for ISRP review by May 1, 2014.
BPA Response to Council Condition #1: Accept <no comment>

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2000-031-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2000-031-00 - Enhance Habitat in the North Fork John Day River
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2000-031-00
Completed Date: 9/26/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

There are potentially many good aspects to the proposal, but the proposal’s narrative and the responses to several of the ISRP’s qualifications are unclear. The main qualifications are that the sponsors need to better explain the proposal rationale and to enlist the collaboration of specialists to aid in project implementation and evaluation. It is also important that relevant RM&E efforts outside this project are well coordinated with project activities listed in this proposal. More specifically, the sponsors need to address several issues that arose from their responses to the ISRP’s questions on the original proposal: see qualifications.

Responses to these qualifications should be submitted for ISRP review by the end of 2013.

Qualification #1 - Response No. 2
The goal is much broader than the stated objectives of the project. The goal should be revised to reflect a balance with the objectives, or vice versa. As presented the objectives are not comprehensive enough to attain the goal.
Qualification #2 - Response No. 3
The objectives should be stated in quantitative terms and time lines provided. As stated, the Deliverables are generally fine, but since the Objectives are not stated quantitatively, these need to be so. Quantitatively recasting the deliverables as environmental benefits or improvements expected to be realized after the individual projects are completed is essential to evaluate the project success.
Qualification #3 - Response No. 5
The ISRP would still like to see the monitoring results collected since 2007. Please provide appropriate metrics and data to show that the restoration actions are making progress.
Qualification #4 - Response No. 7
What is being done to control or eradicate non-native fishes? If this is an important issue with respect to the recovery of native salmonids, as it seems to be, it should be a program component.
Qualification #5 - Response No. 9
The response does not address the question about how fish monitoring data are used to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat projects and only partially addresses specific collaborations between projects. The ISRP needs more fully developed responses to these questions in order to evaluate the proposal. As well, the ISRP expects that considerable ongoing collaboration will occur among the various programs.
Qualification #6 - Response No. 10
The ISRP would appreciate clarification to the following issue: The sponsors state that they will reconcile their monitoring plan with other habitat monitoring plans such as CTUIR's Fisheries Habitat Monitoring Plan, CHaMP and ISEMP, but more description is needed on what will be done.
Qualification #7 - Response No. 11
The ISRP is unsure what the response to No. 11 means. Please provide a revised response for consideration by the ISRP.
Qualification #8 - Response No. 15
The details of cost-sharing, who will do the work among the partners, and timelines for completion, are not provided under Response No. 3. Please provide them.
Qualification #9 - Response No. 16
Issues of data management, as requested in the ISRP qualification, are not addressed under Response No. 5. They should be described in a response.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This is a very ambitious project that should proceed in prioritized stages or program phases. CTUIR should prioritize actions and implement them as a means to develop expertise and better achieve success. Further, the sponsors should consider establishing a scientific advisory committee to assist with the staging of project phases and prioritization of activities.

The sponsors need to address the following issues in a response:

The status and direction of the RME program needs clarification. Are the sponsors modifying the program and, if so, how? What changes will be made and why? What is the status of data analysis? Is data analysis ongoing and, if so, when can results be expected? What is the relationship between this project's RME and CTUIR's Biomonitoring Plan and Fisheries Habitat Management Plan? How is the RME for this project similar to and different from these plans? If the sponsors are modifying their RME, what specific elements of the two plans will be incorporated?

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The project is consistent with a number of regional plans including the John Day Subbasin Plan, the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan, the FCRPS BiOp, and the Fish Accords Agreement. The North Fork John Day supports the largest populations of ESA-listed spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead, and maintains some of the highest quality habitat in the subbasin. In general, the technical background adequately reviews limiting factors and fish population abundances in the study area.

Nevertheless, this was a difficult proposal to understand and evaluate, for three main reasons:

The proposal was poorly written in terms of clarity of ideas and actions, extensive use of vague words to describe outcomes, and use of acronyms without definition. Proofreading was also needed. The document should be carefully edited. In a number of instances statements in the same paragraph appear to contradict each other.

The goal of the project was not clearly stated. For example, in the Executive Summary the goal/purpose of the project varies in three separate paragraphs. In the first instance, it is stated as “This project protects, enhances, and restores functional floodplain, channel and watershed processes to provide sustainable and healthy habitat and water quality for aquatic species in the John Day River Subbasin.” In the second instance it is stated as “The purpose of this project is to protect and enhance habitat for improved natural production of indigenous, Mid-Columbia River (MCR) Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) summer steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) within the North Fork of the John Day River Basin.” In the third instance it is stated as “The goal of the CTUIR North Fork John Day Habitat Enhancement Project (the Project) is to protect, enhance, and restore channel, riparian, and floodplain function and function relating these locations to upland adjacent upland areas using a ‘ridge top to ridge top’ approach to provide sustainable and healthy habitat and water quality for aquatic species in the North Fork John Day River Subbasin.” Although related in spirit, these are not the same. As such, it was very difficult to equate objectives and evaluate activities in the proposal to the stated goal.

Ten Objectives are provided but, for several, there are no deliverables (OBJ 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10). The topics related to the Objectives are discussed in the text, and they are listed as important concerns, but it is not clear how they will be addressed.

There is no overarching model or form of Structured Decision Making to guide the activities or set priorities, and this hampers taking a comprehensive approach to restoration. The activities, while individually important, are not treated as an integrated network of sites and actions chosen for their effectiveness at meeting clearly stated goals. Further, many sites are not monitored to determine if the actions have been effective, thereby undermining the Adaptive Management process.

A coherent discussion of the strategy for selecting and prioritizing restoration sites would have improved the proposal. In particular, since the NFJD supports significant areas of high quality habitat, it would be helpful to know how the project sites are located relative to these habitats and whether the location of these areas is considered in site selection.

The objectives appear sufficient to address the major limiting factors in the North Fork John Day.

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

A number of habitat enhancement projects have been initiated in the North Fork John Day since the project’s inception. While the sponsors summarized habitat enhancement actions for a number of projects, discussed the outcomes of these actions to date, and provided pre-and post-project photographs, few quantitative results were presented. Has the monitoring data been analyzed and, if not, what are the plans for data analysis? The project needs to establish a comprehensive model or institute Structured Decision Making, as well as monitoring, to guide actions and evaluate outcomes.

During the 12-year project history, the CTUIR has helped administer and implement 29 efforts, developed 26 stock water sites to help protect 9.7 miles of stream channel, and entered 1600 acres of riparian, floodplain, and upland areas into Conservation Agreements. Additional cooperative work constructed 24.75 miles of riparian exclusion fence outside of the Conservation Agreements, replaced 5 passage barriers, provided weed control on over 300 acres, and redistributed 276,640 cubic yards of mine tailings. Additional work to develop efforts which did not mature included a fence construction, a watershed analysis, and a range inventory in the Desolation GA, aspen plantings with associated fencing along Upper Owens Creek (Lower Camas Creek GA), guzzler development above Rudio Creek (Lower NFJD GA), and road stabilization above Ukiah, Oregon (Lower Camas Creek GA) where landowners backed off of cooperative efforts, and one boundary fence and culvert replacement in the Desolation Creek GA dropped due to a shortfall in available funding. This equates to ~2.4 efforts annually, ~3 miles of stream protection, and ~133 acres of conservation.

Due to the lack of consistent monitoring, it is not clear that the individual or collective actions are having positive effects on focal species or environmental concerns. Further, without a general model or Structured Decision Making, it is not clear that the efforts are targeted at sites with a strong potential for aiding species’ recovery or ameliorating environmental concerns.

Several topics, which the ISRP suspects are locally important, are only lightly touched upon in the proposal. These are invasive non-native plants in riparian areas, impacts of non-native fishes on native populations, use of agricultural chemicals (toxics), browsing by native ungulates in restored areas, and strategies concerning beaver. These should be addressed in a substantive way in the proposed actions.

The ISRP is surprised and concerned that climate change models and scenarios are not consulted when planning activities. After all, on-the-ground activities need to be resilient to future environmental changes; there are several “user friendly” techniques available.

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

The sponsors could have provided a more detailed discussion of the relationship between their project and others that are ongoing in the North Fork John Day. For example, how are fish monitoring data collected by Project 1998-016-00: "Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead" used to evaluate the effectiveness of the habitat projects? In addition, the sponsors could have discussed in more detail the coordination with ODFW’s John Day Habitat Enhancement project (1984-021-00). For example, what sort of collaboration between the projects is occurring? Are sites being selected in a complementary way so as to optimize the potential benefits of habitat enhancement actions?

The status of the RM&E program, especially of effectiveness monitoring, and whether there are plans to modify the program, as the proposal implies, needs clarification. A concise overview of the M&E plan would be helpful including whether data collection at project sites and data analysis is currently being undertaken. The sponsors state that they will “reconcile” their monitoring plan with other habitat monitoring plans such as CTUIR’s Fisheries Habitat Monitoring Plan, CHaMP and ISEMP but it is not clear what they mean by “reconcile.” The sponsors present a lengthy discussion of CTUIR’s Biomonitoring Plan. How does this Plan relate to current project monitoring? Will elements of the Biomonitoring Plan be incorporated into a revised M&E plan for this project? Clarification of the status and direction of the project's monitoring program is needed.

The sponsors recognize climate, non-native plants, predation, and toxic chemicals as emerging limiting factors – and this is good to see. However, in reality, these are not emerging limiting factors but ones that are already present at significant levels. As such, they should be addressed directly by program actions.

There are ongoing program relationships with landowners, the U.S. Forest Service, local counties, and others. It is a small community, and the ISRP suspects there is ongoing communication at several levels. Our deeper concern is at a larger spatial scale. There are several other entities in the region proposing similar restoration actions. Efforts should be made by all entities, and coordinated by the Council, BPA and other funding agencies, to see that working relationships are established at the larger spatial scale. This will encourage local learning and build regional adaptive capacity.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Although the sponsors refer to monitoring methods and metrics in MonitoringMethods.org, the extent of this project’s monitoring in the North Fork, especially effectiveness monitoring, is unclear.

There are no deliverables for 5 of the 10 Objectives; this is mentioned above. The Objectives need to be recast as quantitative statements to identify specifically and quantitatively what will be achieved and provide realistic timelines. The deliverables need to reflect this quantitative approach.

Many of the deliverables, as stated, are generally fine. However, there are numerous specific questions about details of cost-sharing, who will do the work among the partners, and timelines for completion.

Data management: It appears that there is some in-house data management and perhaps some cooperation with partners, but the levels of sophistication and analyses are far from clear. These aspects should be fully articulated in a revision to this proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No comments at this time.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:02:02 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/8/2013)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2000-031-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2000-031-00 - Enhance Habitat in the North Fork John Day River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2000-031-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2000-031-00 - Enhance Habitat in the North Fork John Day River
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:
Chinook Mid-Columbia ESU steelhead, Mid-Columbia ESU bull trout and interior redband trout should all realize long-term benefits from the habitat improvements proposed. This project is well planned, and the objectives and methods have been thought through. Clear ties are made to the Fish and Wildlife Program, the BPA Watershed Management Program, the BiOp RPAs, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, and the Subbasin Plan. There are many complementarities between this project and others in the subbasin, with clear descriptions of who does what, how they are related, and presentation of the role of CTUIR in the communities and watershed council.

This project proposes tributary habitat improvements in priority areas identified in the Subbasin Plan and tied to EDT results. Habitat limiting factors are linked with strategies and restoration activities. Detailed descriptions of habitat problems and activities to date are provided by geographic area. There is a clear description of project history and actions, but little evaluation of project outcomes and impacts. A table lays out the rationale for proposed actions. Objectives are specific to location, expressed in measurable units and relate actions to time lags for discerning measurable effects. Work elements are similarly specific, with milestones and dates. M&E will be done through collection of well-described, pre- and-post implementation data on channel hydrology and vegetative response. No direct monitoring of fish use of habitat. The sponsors should coordinate with ODFW so that fish monitoring occurs and can be tied to habitat improvements. Information transfer is accomplished through outreach and education activities, watershed council participation, landowner collaborations, and periodic reporting.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2000-031-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2000-031-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration activities; other entities may be authorized/required; need confirmation of screening or other criteria to ensure BPA not funding activities others are required to perform (some covered by BPA-FS MOU?); need confirmation that cost is adequate.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2000-031-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2000-031-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
John Zakrajsek Project Lead Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Israel Duran Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Michael Lambert Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Mitchell Daniel Technical Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)