Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-397-00 - John Day Watershed Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-397-00 - John Day Watershed Restoration

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2007-397-00
Title:
John Day Watershed Restoration
Summary:
The John Day is the nation’s second longest free-flowing river in the contiguous United States and the longest containing entirely un-supplemented runs of anadromous fish. Located in eastern Oregon, the basin drains over 8,000 square miles, Oregon’s fourth largest drainage basin, and incorporates portions of eleven counties. Originating in the Strawberry Mountains near Prairie City, the John Day River flows 284 miles in a northwesterly direction, entering the Columbia River approximately four miles upstream of the John Day dam. With wild runs of spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead, westslope cutthroat, and redband and bull trout, the John Day system is truly a basin with national significance.

In 1855, a majority of the John Day basin was ceded to the Federal government by the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (Tribes). In 1997, the Tribes established an office in the basin to coordinate restoration projects, monitoring, planning and other watershed activities on private and public lands. Once established, the John Day Basin Office (JDBO) formed partnerships with local agencies and groups to implement restoration activities from the John Day Basin Office and Watershed Restoration Program.

The John Day Watershed Restoration Program is an on-going, interagency program that focuses primarily on converting inefficient, detrimental land-use practices through irrigation system upgrades, upland restoration and riparian fencing and planting. The program’s objectives include removing fish passage impediments, increasing water flows, increasing water quality, and enhancing riparian and stream channel recovery. Though benefits most readily apply to fish species, the cumulative effects apply to basin-wide watershed recovery.

Projects implemented by the JDBO are intended to increase in-season river flows through a combination of irrigation efficiency measures; reduce bank instability, sedimentation, bed load movement, and summer passage impediments; improve riparian condition; and implement an annual monitoring program evaluating each of the projects. These projects respond directly to, and are consistent with, tribal, state, and federal goals and objectives within the region's plans and programs. Previous projects of these types have demonstrated success in addressing limiting factors identified for salmonid production in the basin. They follow comprehensive assessments of the watershed, the John Day Subbasin plan, and Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan. The benefits are to entirely wild stocks and associated habitats. Each project utilizes standard design criteria, and was selected using an interagency evaluation and prioritization process. The effects of varying project implementation scenarios on river flows and stream temperatures have been analyzed through studies of the basin hydrology. The effects of individual projects are also evaluated as to short and long term beneficial and/or adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial species.

For most projects the JDBO works with local SWCDs, Watershed Councils, and other agencies to complete landowner contacts, preliminary planning, engineering designs, permitting, construction contracting, and construction implementation phases for most projects. The JDBO completes the planning, grant solicitation/defense, environmental compliance, administrative contracting, monitoring, juniper removal contracting, water development implementation, riparian planting, and reporting portion of the program. Most phases of project planning, implementation, and monitoring are coordinated with the private landowners and basin agencies, such as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Water Resources Department.

In response to identified issues and recommended restoration actions, the basin’s principal management agencies have developed and implemented both active and passive restoration programs. Project efforts rely and build adaptively upon previous and ongoing activities. The overall restoration program appears to have resulted in some significant successes, in particular with spawning and rearing of spring Chinook on private lands. This proposal seeks integrated upland management with the stream restoration/water conservation program. The John Day Basin Watershed Restoration Program, conducted by the John Day Basin Office of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, is a result of long-term study and planning processes to develop a comprehensive suite of projects that address not only identified issues associated with production, but also gaps in ongoing agency restoration efforts.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
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
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

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 *
FY2018 (Previous) $2,305,071 $2,562,878 $2,532,871 $2,532,871 $2,408,979

Post 2018 – Warm Springs $2,305,071 $2,278,082 $2,278,082 $2,166,653
Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $257,807 $254,789 $254,789 $242,326
FY2019 (Current) $2,305,071 $4,305 $4,305 ($1,167,753)

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $2,305,071 $4,305 $4,305 ($1,167,753)
FY2020 (Next) $2,305,071 $2,305,071 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $2,305,071 $0 $0 $0
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $2,305,071 From: Post 2018 – Warm Springs FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $211,988 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Warm Springs) 11/13/2017 11/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $45,819 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Warm Springs) 11/13/2017 11/13/2017
FY2019 Expense $2,305,071 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $2,305,071 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
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 (Draft)
2017 $1,157,161 (Draft) 32 % (Draft)
2016 $1,090,330 (Draft) 31 % (Draft)
2015 $821,893 (Draft) 22 % (Draft)
2014 (Draft)
2013 (Draft)
2012 $965,089 (Draft) 32 % (Draft)
2011 $887,000 (Draft) 29 % (Draft)
2010 $1,371,000 (Draft) 41 % (Draft)
2009 $1,335,900 (Draft) 42 % (Draft)
2008 $925,450 (Draft) 30 % (Draft)
2007 $925,171 (Draft) 35 % (Draft)

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
32153 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2007-397-00 EXP JOHN DAY WATERSHED RESTORATION History $349,106 2/1/2007 - 1/31/2008
BPA-007898 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - John Day Watershed Restoration Active $1,663 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008402 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - John Day Watershed Restoration Active $3,350 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008971 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 PIT Tags & TBL Realty Services Active $5,647 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
71619 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2007-397-00 EXP JOHN DAY TRIB/PASS & FLOW Issued $4,929,957 2/1/2016 - 1/31/2018
BPA-009031 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 PIT Tags, Land Acquisition & Realty Services Active $21,231 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-009771 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 PIT Tags, Land Acq. & Realty Active $5,914 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
78267 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2007-397-00 EXP JOHN DAY TRIB/PASS & FLOW Issued $2,526,957 2/1/2018 - 1/31/2019
BPA-010607 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/PIT Tags Active $4,304 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
CR-326035 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2007-397-00 EXP JOHN DAY TRIB/PASS & FLOW Pending $1 2/1/2019 - 1/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):14
Completed:7
On time:7
Status Reports
Completed:87
On time:38
Avg Days Late:14

Historical from: 1998-018-00
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
4282 21629, 26506 1998-018-00 INSTALL IRRIGATION DITCH DIVERSIONS Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 04/2001 04/2001 History 8 56 0 0 4 60 93.33% 0
Project Totals 94 557 51 0 87 695 87.48% 116


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
32153 37190, 45904, 56050, 64714, 67667 2007-397-00 EXP JOHN DAY WATERSHED RESTORATION Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 02/2007 02/2007 Closed 38 190 0 0 20 210 90.48% 16
32331 37186, 46942, 56228, 64905, 71619, 78267 2007-397-00 CAP JOHN DAY TRIB/PASS & FLOW - WATERSHED RESTORATION Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 02/2007 02/2007 Pending 48 311 51 0 63 425 85.18% 100
BPA-007898 PIT Tags - John Day Watershed Restoration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008402 PIT Tags - John Day Watershed Restoration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008971 FY16 PIT Tags & TBL Realty Services Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009031 FY17 PIT Tags, Land Acquisition & Realty Services Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009771 FY18 PIT Tags, Land Acq. & Realty Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010607 FY19 Land Aquisitions/PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 94 557 51 0 87 695 87.48% 116


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: 2007-397-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2007-397-00 - John Day Watershed Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2007-397-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through 2014. Sponsor to submit to Council and ISRP for review the final Implementation Strategy (ISRP qualification). Sponsor to coordinate with projects #1984-021-00 and #1993-066-00 and appropriate local governments in the development of the Implementation Strategy (see recommendations for projects #1984-021-00 and #1993-066-00). See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to submit to Council and ISRP for review the final Implementation Strategy (ISRP qualification). Sponsor to coordinate with projects #1984-021-00 and #1993-066-00 and appropriate local governments in the development of the Implementation Strategy (see recommendations for projects #1984-021-00 and #1993-066-00). See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: B. Evaluate and Improve Umbrella Projects—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation B for umbrella projects.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-397-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2007-397-00 - John Day Watershed Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2007-397-00
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:

This proposal, largely conceptual in format, has two distinct aspects: habitat implementation and project prioritization and selection. It is intended to develop an implementation strategy, including stakeholder and advisory committees, development of scientific scoring of biological integrity, and a feasibility scoring system to guide the selection and completion of suites of habitat restoration projects for 2014-2018. Overall, this project has a successful record of accomplishments, especially related to improving fish passage. The discussion of plans for restoration and desired elements of a restoration strategy including protect and maintain highest quality habitat areas, manage land to ensure ecological integrity and function and restore highest priority watersheds and habitat are presented but are not thoroughly incorporated into the proposal.

The project, as written, intends to be an umbrella project for fish habitat restoration in the John Day basin. However, it was not clearly indicated how much support the sponsor’s strategy for the basin will have from other entities doing work in the subbasin and operating independently for decades. What is the overall plan for the basin? How does this proposed project mesh with other basin activities? What is the exact nature of the cooperation and how are the sponsors going to include all the managers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the soil and water conservation districts, and other stakeholders in their strategic planning? The sponsors should bring the TAC in early in the process to assist with a strategic plan for implementation and monitoring.

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

This project is consistent with multiple tribal, federal, and state agency regional and subbasin recovery plans. The problem is clearly defined. The sponsors concisely discuss the major factors limiting fish production in the John Day subbasin and the kinds of restoration actions that should be taken to remediate them. Based on the discussion in Project History, it appears that significant progress has been made in the John Day subbasin in improving fish passage, habitat, and land management.

The sponsors provided a detailed description of a formalized Implementation Strategy that they are in the process of developing to prioritize restoration activities. This Strategy apparently was developed in response to a recommendation in the ISRP’s 2006 project review. Development of the Strategy is the first objective in the proposal. The remainder of the objectives pertain primarily to protection of high quality habitats and restoration of degraded habitats prioritized by the Implementation Strategy and thus these objectives are contingent on successful completion of Objective 1, "Develop Strategy Document,” which the sponsors say will be completed in 2014.

The ISRP commends the sponsors for developing what appears to be a rational, systematic procedure for project site selection and action. This approach could serve as a model for other restoration planning efforts in the subbasin, however many entities are working in the John Day Basin. Will they participate in the Strategy and follow the priority listing of projects? If so, how will they participate? There is a need to avoid duplication of effort in planning. The proposal states that "The Tribes would like to coordinate with basin partners and technical experts to leverage existing scientific data, physical information, and stakeholder input for the development of a strategic, prioritized restoration implementation strategy”. With the extensive planning efforts that have already been undertaken within the subbasin, including the Subbasin Plan and the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Conservation and Recovery Plan, it seems that much of what the Strategy proposes to do, that is determine fish use of stream reaches by life stage, limiting factor identification, site prioritization, appropriate remedial actions should have been completed some years ago. Why are partnerships still being built after 5 years? It seems they should have been already in place. It is not clear how well this proposed work is coordinated with ODFW, Soil and Water Conservation districts, and other basin entities. Why is prioritization only occurring now? It seems as though it should have been done prior to ongoing enhancement actions. The implementation phase of this work seems to be getting ahead of the coordination. It would have been helpful if the sponsors were more explicit about why their strategic approach is needed in lieu of other subbasin planning efforts. What will it provide that other planning documents have not?

As criteria for site selection, the sponsors may want to consider the locations of other restoration sites in the basin and proximity to high quality habitats.

The project objectives are actually goal statements and lack quantitative description of desired products or specified dates for completion. These need to be provided.

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

Restoration actions undertaken so far by this project are primarily passage improvement, juniper removal, riparian planting, LWD placement, and installation of cattle exclosures. Results consist primarily of descriptions of projects that have been undertaken to date. Few quantitative results were presented. The proposal could have been improved if the sponsors had discussed in more detail what sort of M&E program is currently in place, what kind of monitoring data has been collected, and whether the data have been analyzed and utilized.

The sponsors discuss extensively the Middle Fork John Day Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project in which they are a cooperator. It is unclear, however, how this project is related to the work set forth in the current proposal. The sponsors should have clearly identified how they will make use of the results from the IMW project in their proposed work and what role it has in development of the sponsor’s Implementation Strategy.

The sponsors consider development and implementation of the Strategy to represent adaptive management.

Restoration in the John Day has been ongoing for 30 years. Past ISRP comments (2006) suggested the need for clear criteria to prioritize projects, more M&E, development of an accomplishments report and review, and additional detail to be included in work elements. It appears that no retrospective analysis of past actions has been done. There is limited discussion of lessons learned and their application into program design or operation. A positive aspect is that there has been some upslope work that includes juniper treatment to improve streamflow. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the extent of this treatment needed to actually result in measurable increases in flow.

There are no clearly established criteria for prioritizing projects and there is little detail provided regarding key designs or considerations for work elements. There has been additional staffing for effectiveness monitoring.

To understand project significance at the landscape scale, the sponsors need to conceptualize at a wider scale than the reach scale. This is because many important processes, potentially affecting habitat quantity and quality, operate at broader than the reach scale. A geomorphologist should be included on the TAC for the project.

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

There are a large number of projects pertaining to both fish and habitat on-going and planned in the John Day basin as well as IMW and other ISEMP projects. Many of these projects appear to be taking place in similar parts of the subbasin and some have different objectives than others. One of the major questions is how all of these projects coordinate their restoration and monitoring activities so as to be complementary and not duplicative, and maximize the probability that the projects, taken together, have a positive cumulative impact on fish and habitat. For example, is project site selection done cooperatively with all major entities involved? It seems that the proposed Implementation Strategy could be used cooperatively by all entities working in the subbasin. Are the monitoring efforts consistent among projects in terms of the monitoring design, data collected, and analyses conducted? The ISRP recognizes that answering these questions should not solely be the responsibility of the sponsors of this project but rather it should be a joint response by all cooperators in the subbasin.

The sponsors discuss climate change as a potential problem and maintain that their habitat restoration work will help to mitigate climate change impacts especially to the extent that the restoration actions reduce water temperatures. No potential effects on lamprey are discussed. Additionally, there is no discussion of forest health and potential effects of major fires or disease outbreaks on aquatic habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The first five Deliverables pertain to development of the Implementation Strategy which will prioritize project locations and is scheduled to be completed in 2014. Many of the remaining Deliverables are nearly restatements of the Objectives. Specific project locations are not identified in the Deliverables. They will be selected based on the outcome of the Implementation Strategy process. This approach is reasonable and should not delay commencement of the projects beyond 2014.

The work in public education and outreach is a positive element and it appears that a wide range of activities have been developed and implemented in the past few years.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

There is limited discussion on specific monitoring changes since the last ISRP review. There is no mention of future needs to become involved in ISEMP and AEM.


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

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
In contracting and future reviews, the project sponsor should describe how project prioritization will mesh with activities of ODFW and other management entities. The sponsor's work and that of other agencies appear parallel in approach, but coordination could be improved. A past ISRP request for prioritization seems to not have been completed or coordinated with other basin entities. The sponsors need to ensure that their project works cooperatively with partners to develop priority restoration areas with no duplication of effort. The ISRP should review the criteria that are used to review projects, the composition of the TAC, and the overall M&E plan as part of a review of the Implementation Strategy scheduled for completion in 2014.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal, largely conceptual in format, has two distinct aspects: habitat implementation and project prioritization and selection. It is intended to develop an implementation strategy, including stakeholder and advisory committees, development of scientific scoring of biological integrity, and a feasibility scoring system to guide the selection and completion of suites of habitat restoration projects for 2014-2018. Overall, this project has a successful record of accomplishments, especially related to improving fish passage. The discussion of plans for restoration and desired elements of a restoration strategy including protect and maintain highest quality habitat areas, manage land to ensure ecological integrity and function and restore highest priority watersheds and habitat are presented but are not thoroughly incorporated into the proposal.

The project, as written, intends to be an umbrella project for fish habitat restoration in the John Day basin. However, it was not clearly indicated how much support the sponsor’s strategy for the basin will have from other entities doing work in the subbasin and operating independently for decades. What is the overall plan for the basin? How does this proposed project mesh with other basin activities? What is the exact nature of the cooperation and how are the sponsors going to include all the managers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the soil and water conservation districts, and other stakeholders in their strategic planning? The sponsors should bring the TAC in early in the process to assist with a strategic plan for implementation and monitoring.

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

This project is consistent with multiple tribal, federal, and state agency regional and subbasin recovery plans. The problem is clearly defined. The sponsors concisely discuss the major factors limiting fish production in the John Day subbasin and the kinds of restoration actions that should be taken to remediate them. Based on the discussion in Project History, it appears that significant progress has been made in the John Day subbasin in improving fish passage, habitat, and land management.

The sponsors provided a detailed description of a formalized Implementation Strategy that they are in the process of developing to prioritize restoration activities. This Strategy apparently was developed in response to a recommendation in the ISRP’s 2006 project review. Development of the Strategy is the first objective in the proposal. The remainder of the objectives pertain primarily to protection of high quality habitats and restoration of degraded habitats prioritized by the Implementation Strategy and thus these objectives are contingent on successful completion of Objective 1, "Develop Strategy Document,” which the sponsors say will be completed in 2014.

The ISRP commends the sponsors for developing what appears to be a rational, systematic procedure for project site selection and action. This approach could serve as a model for other restoration planning efforts in the subbasin, however many entities are working in the John Day Basin. Will they participate in the Strategy and follow the priority listing of projects? If so, how will they participate? There is a need to avoid duplication of effort in planning. The proposal states that "The Tribes would like to coordinate with basin partners and technical experts to leverage existing scientific data, physical information, and stakeholder input for the development of a strategic, prioritized restoration implementation strategy”. With the extensive planning efforts that have already been undertaken within the subbasin, including the Subbasin Plan and the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Conservation and Recovery Plan, it seems that much of what the Strategy proposes to do, that is determine fish use of stream reaches by life stage, limiting factor identification, site prioritization, appropriate remedial actions should have been completed some years ago. Why are partnerships still being built after 5 years? It seems they should have been already in place. It is not clear how well this proposed work is coordinated with ODFW, Soil and Water Conservation districts, and other basin entities. Why is prioritization only occurring now? It seems as though it should have been done prior to ongoing enhancement actions. The implementation phase of this work seems to be getting ahead of the coordination. It would have been helpful if the sponsors were more explicit about why their strategic approach is needed in lieu of other subbasin planning efforts. What will it provide that other planning documents have not?

As criteria for site selection, the sponsors may want to consider the locations of other restoration sites in the basin and proximity to high quality habitats.

The project objectives are actually goal statements and lack quantitative description of desired products or specified dates for completion. These need to be provided.

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

Restoration actions undertaken so far by this project are primarily passage improvement, juniper removal, riparian planting, LWD placement, and installation of cattle exclosures. Results consist primarily of descriptions of projects that have been undertaken to date. Few quantitative results were presented. The proposal could have been improved if the sponsors had discussed in more detail what sort of M&E program is currently in place, what kind of monitoring data has been collected, and whether the data have been analyzed and utilized.

The sponsors discuss extensively the Middle Fork John Day Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project in which they are a cooperator. It is unclear, however, how this project is related to the work set forth in the current proposal. The sponsors should have clearly identified how they will make use of the results from the IMW project in their proposed work and what role it has in development of the sponsor’s Implementation Strategy.

The sponsors consider development and implementation of the Strategy to represent adaptive management.

Restoration in the John Day has been ongoing for 30 years. Past ISRP comments (2006) suggested the need for clear criteria to prioritize projects, more M&E, development of an accomplishments report and review, and additional detail to be included in work elements. It appears that no retrospective analysis of past actions has been done. There is limited discussion of lessons learned and their application into program design or operation. A positive aspect is that there has been some upslope work that includes juniper treatment to improve streamflow. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the extent of this treatment needed to actually result in measurable increases in flow.

There are no clearly established criteria for prioritizing projects and there is little detail provided regarding key designs or considerations for work elements. There has been additional staffing for effectiveness monitoring.

To understand project significance at the landscape scale, the sponsors need to conceptualize at a wider scale than the reach scale. This is because many important processes, potentially affecting habitat quantity and quality, operate at broader than the reach scale. A geomorphologist should be included on the TAC for the project.

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

There are a large number of projects pertaining to both fish and habitat on-going and planned in the John Day basin as well as IMW and other ISEMP projects. Many of these projects appear to be taking place in similar parts of the subbasin and some have different objectives than others. One of the major questions is how all of these projects coordinate their restoration and monitoring activities so as to be complementary and not duplicative, and maximize the probability that the projects, taken together, have a positive cumulative impact on fish and habitat. For example, is project site selection done cooperatively with all major entities involved? It seems that the proposed Implementation Strategy could be used cooperatively by all entities working in the subbasin. Are the monitoring efforts consistent among projects in terms of the monitoring design, data collected, and analyses conducted? The ISRP recognizes that answering these questions should not solely be the responsibility of the sponsors of this project but rather it should be a joint response by all cooperators in the subbasin.

The sponsors discuss climate change as a potential problem and maintain that their habitat restoration work will help to mitigate climate change impacts especially to the extent that the restoration actions reduce water temperatures. No potential effects on lamprey are discussed. Additionally, there is no discussion of forest health and potential effects of major fires or disease outbreaks on aquatic habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The first five Deliverables pertain to development of the Implementation Strategy which will prioritize project locations and is scheduled to be completed in 2014. Many of the remaining Deliverables are nearly restatements of the Objectives. Specific project locations are not identified in the Deliverables. They will be selected based on the outcome of the Implementation Strategy process. This approach is reasonable and should not delay commencement of the projects beyond 2014.

The work in public education and outreach is a positive element and it appears that a wide range of activities have been developed and implemented in the past few years.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

There is limited discussion on specific monitoring changes since the last ISRP review. There is no mention of future needs to become involved in ISEMP and AEM.


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

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 12:57:22 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-018-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-018-00 - John Day Watershed Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-018-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-018-00 - John Day 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:
This project would benefit from a program level review with a site visit following, perhaps, distribution of a ten-year summary report in 2008 of their biological and physical habitat results.

The explanation for priority setting and reference to priorities in the Subbasin Plan is brief but reasonable. The sponsors go beyond just prioritization by opportunity. Their prioritization process works out two ways: they evaluate projects that come forward against their prioritization, and they actively pursue actions in priority areas. Nevertheless, this project was hard to review because many of the proposed actions aren't well described and by the next review cycle, those actions will have been implemented. A more explicit description of the criteria used to prioritize projects would be beneficial and should be documented by the next review cycle. A flow chart describing proposed activities from prioritization to monitoring to adaptive management would be helpful.

The sponsors provided sound bites of results but didn't provide the data or graphs supporting the results. Although this is a good first step, the ISRP is in the position to have to take these statements at face value. Some context should be added to the data. The sponsors can make more of the data that they do have. They should incorporate better reporting in their next annual report.

Much of the proposal's focus is for benefits to the range system, with some benefits to fish; however, this is a balanced approach for activities ongoing in the John Day Basin. Objectives as taken from the Subbasin Plan are reasonable, but in future the sponsors should make more effort to include these and priority areas in their proposal in measurable form.

The response to why detailed information is not available on all work elements (projects in development) was somewhat reasonable, provided that there is some mechanism for review of work plans as they are developed. However, even in the development stage, projects should have relevant design detail to report. Research design can't be only opportunistic.

Narrative summaries of biological outcomes of ongoing work were presented. These would have enhanced the proposal and should have been included with supporting data and interpretive evaluation. The project should routinely monitor and report these types of response measures. Much more emphasis should be given to the analysis and interpretation of these indicators in future proposals.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-018-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-018-00
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 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 adequate.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-397-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-397-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 9/14/2007
Capital Rating: Qualifies for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: Fish Passage Improvement
Comment: This project is a result of combining project: 1998-018-00/John Day Watershed Restoration (which previously was the result of combining: 1998-017-00/North Fork/Mid-John Day Fish Passage Improvement; and 2007-365-00 Canyon Creek Culvert Replacements). Capital funding approval submitted by BPA COTR. The COTR, COTR's Manager and BPA Accountant certified that the request meets the BPA F&W capital policy and is approved for capital funding (if capital funds are available).
Assessment Number: 1998-018-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-018-00
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: This project Merged From 1998-018-00 effective on 1/30/2008
Relationship Description: Move expense budgets from 1998-018-00 to 2007-397-00 so a single project number is used for Expense and Capital work.


Name Role Organization
Arthur Mitchell (Inactive) Administrative Contact Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Scott Turo Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Amy Charette Project Lead Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Brian Cochran Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Eric Leitzinger Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Ellen Wilt Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Brad Houslet Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Israel Duran Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Chris Brun Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs