This project has implemented stream restoration and riparian protection for 37 years. Overall, this productive project relies on collaboration and well-vetted planning and design protocols to implement projects in priority basins. The project has faced recent budget cuts and staff reductions but is still implementing higher numbers of restoration projects than through most of its history. The project’s activities are based on sound scientific approaches for using landscape information to protect and restore critical habitats, and the proponents have responded adequately to previous ISRP qualifications.

While no formal response is required, we are asking the proponents of this project to assist in the following process:

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. During the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021), 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. If you have a map or maps of locations of monitoring actions, please provide it to the lead project.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal clearly describes the history and overall goals of the project and discusses the current status of anadromous salmon and steelhead in the Grande Ronde and Umatilla basins.

The goal statement is supported by generally quantitative objectives by subbasin, which are mapped to actions and measures. The proposal provides a clear work plan for the next project phase, which involves large wood addition, floodplain connection activities, and fish passage improvements. In addition, the project will maintain existing projects and work with private landowners and public outreach related to native salmonids. The proposal also explains its relationship to the Atlas, Fish and Wildlife Program, recovery plan for Snake River Chinook and steelhead, recovery plans for Chinook and steelhead in the mid-Columbia, subbasin plans, biological opinions, and recovery plans for bull trout.

Most objectives are quantitative, but specific SMART objectives are not provided for each project. The proposal indicates that miles of fencing, water development operations, and maintenance and inspections are documented in annual statements of work. The ISRP encourages the proponents to restate the social objective (p. 14) as a SMART objective. The ISRP encourages the proponents to provide these objectives in their future annual reports.

Q2: Methods

The proposal lists the sequence of methods for prioritization, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance. While this list does not describe the details of specific on-the-ground methods, it clearly describes a high level of coordination through the formal review process in the basin. The proponents also work closely with BPA to implement Best Management Practices. The methods are appropriate and involve substantial coordination and extensive review. An important aspect is coordination with the Atlas and development of a database documenting the location and date of restoration actions.

Implementation actions will be limited to the Grande Ronde basin because of reductions in funding and staff, but the project will coordinate closely with the CTUIR in the Umatilla River Basin on potential projects.

The ISRP notes that a recent publication (Justice et al. 2017) documents positive responses in salmonid populations. As well, the ISRP strongly supports the effort to investigate water quality in the lower Grande Ronde Valley, as it should address a critical gap in knowledge about the system.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project coordinates closely with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and the Atlas for prioritization, implementation, and evaluation in the Grande Ronde basin. These data-driven projects have developed an effective evaluation process, which includes regularly scheduled meetings for planning, evaluation, and decision-making. The proponents collaborate with the GRMW, ODFW, CTUIR, NPT, UCSWCD, USFS, Trout Unlimited, CRITFC, NMFS, BPA, BOR, and USFWS. The habitat project monitors implementation, status, and maintenance requirements for specific projects. Monitoring of biological objectives is provided by basin research partners, including ODFW, CTUIR, CRITFC, and NPT.

The proposal identifies climate change as a major confounding factor and discusses actions to mitigate its impact. Regional climate projections are considered in project prioritization and design. Work with collaborators, including CRITFC, has modeled potential impacts of climate change in the upper Grande Ronde, and results of that work suggest that the restoration actions will help offset future climate impacts. This type of collaboration demonstrates effective consideration of potential confounding factors. The project also collaborates with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed, which is assessing effects of downstream water quality on fish and wildlife benefits.

The proponents note that the AEM Program will soon be completing analysis of regional floodplain projects, and these results will be incorporated in future restoration designs. The proponents should indicate in the next annual report when the AEM analyses of regional floodplain projects will be completed and when they anticipate incorporating the findings into future restoration designs. Are AEM data readily available to this project? How do the proponents anticipate integrating the results into the project prioritization, design, and evaluation plans? The proponents should describe their plans for these specific analyses and how they will be incorporated into future designs in their annual report.

meetings for planning, evaluation, and decision-making. The proponents collaborate with the GRMW, ODFW, CTUIR, NPT, UCSWCD, USFS, Trout Unlimited, CRITFC, NMFS, BPA, BOR, and USFWS. The habitat project monitors implementation, status, and maintenance requirements for specific projects. Monitoring of biological objectives is provided by basin research partners, including ODFW, CTUIR, CRITFC, and NPT.

The proposal identifies climate change as a major confounding factor and discusses actions to mitigate its impact. Regional climate projections are considered in project prioritization and design. Work with collaborators, including CRITFC, has modeled potential impacts of climate change in the upper Grande Ronde, and results of that work suggest that the restoration actions will help offset future climate impacts. This type of collaboration demonstrates effective consideration of potential confounding factors. The project also collaborates with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed, which is assessing effects of downstream water quality on fish and wildlife benefits.

The proponents note that the AEM Program will soon be completing analysis of regional floodplain projects, and these results will be incorporated in future restoration designs. The proponents should indicate in the next annual report when the AEM analyses of regional floodplain projects will be completed and when they anticipate incorporating the findings into future restoration designs. Are AEM data readily available to this project? How do the proponents anticipate integrating the results into the project prioritization, design, and evaluation plans? The proponents should describe their plans for these specific analyses and how they will be incorporated into future designs in their annual report.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project has implemented on-the-ground restoration for 37 years. The proposal clearly describes restoration actions implemented each year since the 2013 Geographic Review. However, it does not summarize the overall area of restoration, stream miles restored, or any biological outcome. The synthesis articles in Appendices D, E, and F summarize some accomplishments by this project and others in the Grande Ronde basin, but not all. Some individual efforts (e.g., Justice et al. 2017) have evaluated benefit for prioritizing restoration actions. The article in the journal Fisheries by White et al. (2021), in particular, provides several basin-level benefits of the collective efforts of many projects in the Grande Ronde basin. However, while the project is conducting activities believed beneficial for target species, and reports on the number of projects completed, the proposal does not directly address benefits to the fish they aim to help recover. Given the availability of data in this basin, it is important for the proponents to provide empirical evidence from the monitoring data that fish performance measures (e.g., carrying capacity, growth, survivorship, spawning success, and so forth) are improving, or not, in future annual reports and proposals.

Reference

Justice, C., S.M. White, D.A. McCullough, D.S. Graves, and M.R. Blanchard. 2017. "Can stream and riparian restoration offset climate change impacts to salmon populations?" Journal of Environmental Management 188: 212-227.