ODFW has provided a thoughtful and reasonably complete response to the ISRP's questions. In particular, it is now apparent that more flexibility exists in project prioritization and lead responsibility assignment than existed when ODFW and CTUIR basically maintained largely separate geographic responsibilities. We view the evolving relationship between the two entities as a healthy indication of improved collaboration.

In 2010, ODFW, along with the CTUIR and other key partners in the basin, formed the Umatilla Basin Restoration Team. Participation in the team has led to greater coordination, resource sharing, and a reduction in duplication of restoration efforts between ODFW and CTUIR. Participation in the Basin Restoration Team has also promoted some data sharing between ODFW and the CTUIR. Yearly prioritization of projects continues to be guided by the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan. Effectiveness monitoring of the ODFW’s Anadromous Fish Habitat projects in the Umatilla falls under the purview of other associated projects. The sponsors, however, state they will continue to work with BPA to determine if any of their proposed projects may be candidates for inclusion in the AEM program.

ODFW and CTUIR do not use shared databases but claim that data are being shared among members of the Umatilla Basin Restoration Team. A formalized arrangement should be put into place so that responsibilities of each party for data sharing, custody, response to data requests, are clear. The recent document on Data Management from BPA discusses some of the issues that need to be addressed.

Evaluation of Results

The Umatilla subbasin is a good example of a river system that has achieved real progress in cooperation between management entities in identifying and implementing restoration actions. In particular, the working relationship between ODFW and CTUIR has led to a wide variety of habitat improvements in areas that have been highly altered. The ISRP continues to believe that biological effectiveness monitoring in the Umatilla has lagged somewhat behind the progress made in on-the-ground implementation. We feel the highest current RM&E priority is to understand factors that limit survival in the mainstem Umatilla River and what can be done to remedy problems.

This is a worthwhile project that is implementing important restoration actions primarily in the mid- and lower Umatilla subbasin. The ISRP requests additional clarification of the relationship between this project's activities and those of the tribal Umatilla anadromous fish habitat project (1987-100-01).

1) What methods are used to ensure coordination and resource sharing?

2) How is duplication of effort avoided?

3) How are restoration priorities established from year to year?

4) Have any provisions been made for data co-management?

5) What will be this project's role in long-term biological effectiveness monitoring?

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

The significance to regional programs and technical background were adequately explained. This project continues a long-term ODFW program of restoring fish habitat in the Umatilla subbasin with emphasis on two important anadromous salmonid spawning and rearing tributaries – Birch Creek and Meacham Creek. The objectives of this proposal are to continue the maintenance of existing restoration sites involving dam removal, bank stabilization, riparian revegetation, noxious weed control, riparian fencing, and to continue the effort to improve fish passage, instream habitat, flow augmentation, and water quality including primarily stream temperature and sediment. The project's objectives are consistent with the goals of the Fish and Wildlife Program, recovery plans for listed fishes, and the Umatilla Five year Action Plan.

Restoration activities have been guided by several regional plans, the Umatilla/Willow subbasin plan, the Mid-Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead, and an expired five-year action plan developed for the project that was designed to recover and maintain habitat in the Umatilla subbasin.

The project has two objectives, to restore and enhance riparian areas and stream ecosystems in Birch Creek and to maintain existing fish habitat improvement projects in Birch and Meacham Creeks. It provides ODFW with a way to restore degraded habitat, create cooperative agreements with local landowners, maintain existing restoration actions, and engage in outreach and education. Consequently it is an important regional program.

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

According to the proposal, this is an implementation project that involves very little RM&E; therefore, accomplishments and results are presented as units of habitat improved (34 projects along 25 miles of stream protecting 449 acres of riparian and instream habitat) rather than estimates of increased fish productivity. In general, the descriptions of previous habitat restoration actions were clear, and the proposal suggests that future actions will be more of the same. Although the proposal lacked some specificity about what would be done over the next four years, it did state that the primary objective would be to remove another irrigation dam and to maintain a number of existing restoration sites. The before-and-after photographs were helpful, but they mostly dealt with irrigation dam removal and not with other types of activities.

Thirty-three cooperative agreements have been established between private landowners and project personnel. These arrangements allow the project to lease and protect lands and carry out restoration actions on private lands. They typically last from 10 to 25 years. While the agreements are in place the project makes annual inspections and performs maintenance as needed. After expiration, the private landowners are expected to maintain the restoration actions that took place on their lands. Currently there are 16 active and 17 expired cooperative agreements.

Since its inception, the project has made a number of adaptive management changes. Placement of riparian fencing was changed to account for impacts of flooding. Additionally, the types of plants used to restore riparian vegetation have changed over time. Originally rooted stock was planted soon after a project was completed. Now, they allow natural adjustments to restored habitat to occur before planting, and cuttings of willow and cottonwood rather than rooted plants are predominately used. Rooted plants are still utilized; however, they are now grown in deeper pots to create longer root systems to reduce watering and maintenance after planting.

The project sponsors acknowledged that more effectiveness monitoring was needed, but lack of funding has hindered the development of an adequate monitoring program.

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

The description of deliverables and work elements suggests that there is broad overlap between this project and the Umatilla habitat restoration project administered by the CTUIR. The relationships between the ODFW and CTUIR efforts that involve coordination, resource sharing, and identification of priorities need to be clearer. How do these two projects, which address a variety of fish habitat problems in the Umatilla River and tributaries, work together to maximize efficiencies? The site visit was helpful, but we still have questions about information exchange between the two projects.

The section on emerging limiting factors focuses on climate change impacts but does not describe what steps might be taken to make the stream and riparian ecosystems more resilient. Some acknowledgment of the spread of invasive species including which ones are likely to pose future problems would also be helpful.

Project personnel work with the CTUIR, USACE, Umatilla Basin Watershed Council, Umatilla Soil and Water Conservation District, BOR, Oregon Water Resources Department, OWEB, and Blue Mountain Habitat Restoration Council and private landowners in the Birch and Meacham Creek subbasins. They also serve on the Umatilla watershed restoration team which meets quarterly to coordinate habitat restoration actions with local partners in the Umatilla basin.

Increased air and stream temperatures, reduced snow pack levels, snow to rain transition, earlier and higher peak stream flows, lower summer through fall stream flows, increased periods of drought, more frequent and extreme storms, changes in ocean conditions, and more severe fire events all brought about by climate change were identified as the major emerging limiting factors.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has nine deliverables that include establishing cooperative agreements with landowners, writing and procuring grants to implement restoration projects, removing fish migration barriers, constructing riparian fencing and re-vegetating protected areas, stabilizing stream banks and channels, maintaining restored habitat and fencing, collecting temperature and stream flow data, and education and outreach. Project selection appears to be opportunistic to a certain extent as cooperative agreements with private landowners must be in place before a restoration action can occur. Proposed projects are, however, reviewed by CTUIR, Soil and Water Conservation District, BOR, U.S. Forest Service, ODFW, and the USFWS staff. No formal process for selection was described.

More information is needed on the procedures used to identify restoration priorities and sharing of duties with CTUIR. Do these two projects use the same methods to identify candidate restoration sites and habitat improvement techniques? Although the proposal states that the project does not monitor and evaluate effectiveness, more information is needed on how effectiveness monitoring will be coordinated if and when additional funding becomes available. In particular, what will be ODFW's role in managing the monitoring program? The ISRP understands that an integrated effectiveness monitoring program has taken shape more slowly than hoped, but this proposal, as well as others in the Umatilla subbasin, should be proactive in being ready to implement effectiveness monitoring as funding becomes available. This includes identifying locations where no restoration will occur, and which will serve as unenhanced reference sites.

Recently, three M&E projects have begun. Smolt monitoring is now occurring in Birch and Meacham Creeks as well as in the upper Umatilla River. Little habitat restoration has apparently occurred in the headwaters of the Umatilla River, so it will be possible to compare smolt production from watersheds with varying amounts of restoration activity. Steelhead redd surveys are now also occurring using a GRTS approach. Visual inspections of existing restoration projects are made annually and repairs are made as needed. It would be helpful however, if additional data were collected. For example in areas with riparian fencing some measure of plant cover, species present, solar radiation over the streambed, insect production or other metrics should be routinely collected over time to track how the habitat has responded. In general, some form of action effectiveness monitoring should be taking place.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

According to the proposal no RM&E will occur; however, the proposal also states that the project monitors stream temperatures at 9 locations and streamflows at 2 permanent gauging stations. Whether this monitoring is consistent with MonitoringMethods.org was not clear.

198710002 - Umatilla Anadromous Fish Habitat - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

ISRP recommendation: Response requested

The ISRP requests additional clarification of the relationship between this project's activities and those of the tribal Umatilla anadromous fish habitat project (1987-100-01).

1)    What methods are used to ensure coordination and resource sharing?

In 2010, the ODFW and CTUIR anadromous fish habitat programs created the Umatilla Basin Restoration Team.  The Restoration Team provides a communication forum to strategize efforts to identify and prioritize potential fish habitat improvement projects, review proposed projects including designs to gain a common understanding of new implementation methods, and identify funding and cost share opportunities amongst the team members and through outside grants.  In addition to ODFW and CTUIR staff, other key Restoration Team members include Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District and Umatilla Basin Watershed Council.  Specific project coordination has also included local staff from Oregon Water Resources Department, Natural Resource Conservation Service, The Freshwater Trust, and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.

During the initial years of the state and tribal fish habitat programs, a geographic separation of implementation areas was defined with the mutual goal of anadromous fish habitat restoration.  The ODFW geographic area was limited to the Birch Creek and upper Meacham Creek watersheds.  Through changes of project personnel in ODFW, CTUIR and BPA project staff, implementation crossover of the geographic separation began to occur to take advantage of opportunistic landowner interest, and resolve restricted work element definition within the statement of work for the ODFW project during several years.  In 2005, as an initial effort to address coordination concerns and create resource sharing, a Five Year Action Plan for the Development and Maintenance of Habitat Improvement Projects in the Umatilla Subbasin (St. Hilaire et al. 2005) was completed.  The objective of this plan was to “direct efforts for both the ODFW and the CTUIR fish habitat improvement programs by identifying, developing and implementing site-specific habitat improvement projects aimed at restoring and/or protecting fish habitat conditions, stream channel stability and riparian function”.  Priority areas for the development of on-the-ground fish habitat improvement projects were guided by the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan (DeBano et al. 2004).  The Five Year Action Plan continues to play a role as a tool for the Restoration Team to unify efforts, share resources and avoid duplication and/or overlapping of project development in these priority areas.

Once ODFW or CTUIR identifies a fish habitat improvement project within the priority areas it is discussed amongst the Restoration Team.  Either the state or tribal program is identified as the lead to clearly communicate project details to funding agency and potential partners.   Due to the limited amount of implementation dollars in the ODFW program, the BPA expenditures are used primarily as matching funds for technical and financial cost share resources.  The ODFW project biologist has successfully received grants from OWEB, Blue Mountain Habitat Restoration Council, Oregon Governor’s Grant, and Pacific Coast Salmon Restoration Funds.  In recent years, CTUIR fish habitat program has also provided in-kind match and cash match for several of the passage projects implemented by ODFW.  The ODFW and CTUIR programs have supported each other with loan of equipment, fish salvage assistance, equipment trailers, planting tools, technicians for planting riparian areas, and joint review engineering designs and selection of contractors. Both ODFW and CTUIR Anadromous Fish Habitat programs are part of the much larger Umatilla Basin Fisheries Restoration Program with the primary goal of restoring and enhancing natural production and harvest of salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla Basin.  

2)    How is duplication of effort avoided?

The Umatilla Basin Restoration Team provides a collaborative mechanism to discuss current projects, outline ongoing landowner contacts to avoid duplication and discuss future opportunities.  In general, the priority areas outlined geographically between ODFW and CTUIR in the Five Year Plan are used to guide landowner contacts.  The lead fish habitat biologists for state and tribal programs also maintain more frequent contact if a unique opportunity or circumstance arises.  The Restoration Team has quarterly meetings to discuss projects (ongoing, proposed, and future), coordinate partnerships for technical and financial assistance, and identify cost-sharing and funding opportunities.  The ODFW program considers that communication is the key to avoiding duplication of efforts.

3)    How are restoration priorities established from year to year?

The ODFW and the CTUIR Umatilla Anadromous Fish Habitat Programs continue to be guided by limiting factors and management strategies in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan (DeBano et al. 2004) and the Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (ODFW 2010).  The restoration priorities, guided by the management strategies and priority target areas listed for Habitat Improvement Efforts in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan, habitat limiting factors and strategic actions  identified in Sections 8.2.10 and 9.3.10 of the Oregon Mid-C steelhead Recovery Plan, and current ODFW Fish Barrier Inventory (ODFW 2011), do not change considerably from year to year.  The ODFW program develops potential projects in the two priority geographical areas where we primarily work, Birch Creek and upper Meacham Creek watersheds.  The ODFW fish habitat program staff review the project list with the District Fish Biologist and then discuss merits of the specific projects through the Restoration Team.  Project characteristics such as location in the reach (if addressing fish passage), habitat type (spawning, rearing, or migration), species targeted, ancillary benefits such as instream flow, and cost to benefit are considered during the Restoration Team discussions.   Opportunity (willing landowner) and unanticipated project complexities (such as water right issues with removing fish passage obstructions/old irrigation diversion dams) often determine what is available to begin planning and project implementation.  Each individual project timeline is dependent on how passive (riparian corridor fencing only) or active (stream channel reconstruction) the habitat improvement action is.  Finally, a discussion of potential costs and funding opportunities is evaluated to determine if a project will be pursued in the short term or will remain as an opportunity for the future. 

4)    Have any provisions been made for data co-management?

Two permanent stream flow gauges and seasonal temperature recorders are operated through protocols in MonitoringMethods.org and are maintained with project funding. The gauge station stream flow data is co-managed with the Oregon of Water Resources Department (OWRD) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) through the Hydromet System, accessible as public information at http://www.usbr.gov/pn-bin/rtindex.pl?cfg=umat.

Fish salvage data as part of habitat improvement projects are reported to NOAA/NMFS and StreamNet, a website that provides access to fish and fisheries related data and reference documents in the Columbia River Basin and the Pacific Northwest (http://www.streamnet.org/).  NOAA/NMFS use the data for issuing permits.

All of the data generated by the state and tribal fish habitat improvement projects are provided as part of the BPA quarterly and annual report requirements (https://www.cbfish.org/).  While ODFW and CTUIR currently do not have a data co-management platform in place (such as a shared database for each of the specific project work elements), data sharing is a benefit of the Umatilla Basin Restoration Team process.

5)    What will be this project's role in long-term biological effectiveness monitoring?

Consistent with the BPA Programmatic Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM) program reviewed by the ISRP (ISRP 2013-2) and recommended for implementation by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, it is not the responsibility of this project to provide data or document protocols of other projects for RM&E as part of this proposal.  Although this project is not tasked with implementing AEM, it does align with the Programmatic AEM approach.  Project monitoring will be carried out by other projects focused on collecting data to support the Programmatic AEM approach.  The known RM&E projects associated with this project are referenced in the “Relationship to Other Projects” section in the proposal form, or were referenced as part of the programmatic processes previously provided to the ISRP and ISAB by BPA for review of the Programmatic AEM approach.  However, this project will continue to work with BPA and Council staff to identity whether restoration actions proposed under this project may be candidates for use in the AEM program.   In accordance with the ISRP and Council recommendation, BPA will provide the ISRP updates on the ISEMP (IMWs fish and habitat relationships), CHaMP (Status and Trends) and the AEM program (with updated list of actions and related projects that contribute to the AEM program). 

References

DeBano et al. 2004.  DeBano, S., Wooster D. and six organizations.  Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan.  Prepared by the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Planning Team for NPCC.

ISRP 2013.  Habitat RME Review: ISEMP, CHAMP, and Action Effectiveness Monitoring.  ISRP 2013-2. Independent Scientific Review Panel for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

ODFW 2010.  Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

ODFW 2011.  1987-100-02, Annual Progress Report to the Bonneville Power Administration for the Federal Fiscal Year 2011.

St. Hilaire et al. 2005.  St. Hilaire, D., Bailey, T., Lewis, B. and James, G. 2005.  Five Year Action Plan for the Development and Maintenance of Habitat Improvement Projects in the Umatilla Subbasin: 2006-2010 for BPA Fish Habitat Improvement Programs 1987-100-01 and 1987-100-02.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.