This project has encountered serious difficulties, which the sponsors candidly discuss in their Annual Reports, and which are detailed in the History section of this review. These difficulties include enlisting the help of qualified partners to do the work, acquiring external funding to support habitat enhancement projects, and establishing cooperative relationships with some public entities. It is not clear at this point how successful the sponsors have been in dealing with these difficulties. If these problems are not overcome, the success of this project is highly uncertain. The proposal would have been improved significantly if the sponsors addressed these difficulties forthrightly in the proposal and discussed the progress they have made in resolving them.

The need for this project is unclear. The project appears to duplicate many of the functions of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW), a well-established and successful project that has played a key role in implementing habitat projects in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Neither in the proposal nor in their presentation to the ISRP were the sponsors able to clearly explain, on scientific grounds, how their project differed significantly from the GRMW and why it was needed in addition to the GRMW. This project, unlike the GRMW, provides no direct funding for projects but will seek external funding once habitat enhancement proposals have been selected. This introduces considerable uncertainty into the funding process. The ISRP suggests that this project be consolidated with the GRMW program and, possibly, with existing Tucannon planning activities, or that the sponsors provide a scientifically defensible reason for not doing so.

The objectives and deliverables broadly describe the process for project selection and design but provide little information on specific outcomes. The proposal does not identify the location of priority areas for restoration, limiting factors that need to be addressed at these locations, specific projects being planned, and how these projects address the limiting factors. The proposal does not provide quantitative goals or benchmarks for the objectives and deliverables which makes it difficult to determine whether progress is being made toward achieving the objectives. This information is necessary to evaluate the scientific merit of the proposal.

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

This is an umbrella project whose purpose is planning and coordination of habitat protection and restoration projects in streams in Northeast Oregon and Southeast Washington including the Grande Ronde subbasin, Imnaha subbasin, and Pine Watershed in Northeast Oregon and the Tucannon and Asotin Creek subbasins in Southeast Washington. It also is involved in outreach and education. The project will coordinate with partners to identify priority locations for habitat enhancement, select proposals that address the limiting factors identified through the FCPRS Biological Opinion Expert Panel process, and seek funding for these proposals. The sponsors state that the project is consistent with the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and other tribal, state, and federal recovery and monitoring plans.

Regarding uncertainty in project funding, the sponsors state in their 2009-10 Annual Report: “Another important issue that cannot be understated is the lack of direct project funds to implement restoration activities. It simply adds over a year to the total time frame for completion of projects if the sponsor has to seek outside funding sources to accomplish them. This situation demands much more time committed to the project, simply in terms of acquiring the funding to implement and additional reporting requirements.” The difficulty in acquiring stable funding sources clearly jeopardizes the project’s chances for success.

Part of the difficulty in acquiring funding seems to stem from a disagreement with the GRMW over project prioritization and funding. The July 2010-January 2012 Annual Report states “The Protect and Restore Northeast Oregon contract had much success in identifying projects but little success in implementing projects. This was primarily due to two causes. Disagreement between the project leader, the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and others over the efficacy and priority of selected projects prevented project implementation. Unfortunately, some projects that the project leader advocated for were denied funding by the Grande Ronde Model Watershed.” Discussion of this difference in viewpoints in the proposal may have helped resolve some of the ISRP’s concern over duplication of effort. For example, what were the scientific reasons for the differences in viewpoints between the project leader and the GRMW?

The sponsors list the GRMW as one of its cooperators. Given that this project appears to have a similar function as the GRMW, and that there apparently was some disagreement in the past over project selection, it would be useful if the sponsors provided more details on the nature of their current coordination efforts with the GRMW.

The proposal would have been improved if the sponsors had identified the specific habitat projects that have been funded and where funding had been acquired. It also would have been helpful if the sponsors identified projects that are in the planning stage but have not yet been funded. Since many partners are involved, and since they will be and have been doing most of the actual on the ground implementation, it would be helpful if details were provided on the roles and restoration actions of the partners.

The Objectives, in a very general sense, are reasonable. However, since there are no quantifiable goals for the objectives or for the deliverables, the objectives cannot be evaluated for success. Objective 2 pertains to prioritization of locations for habitat protection and restoration. The proposal implies that a prioritization process is already in place and some projects have already been selected and funded through this process. It would be useful if the sponsors had discussed the prioritization process in somewhat more detail. The Key Personnel appear to have the expertise to accomplish the proposed coordination/ administration although it is unclear as to who will have responsibilities for specific work items.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The sponsors have succeeded in acquiring funding for some projects and have several projects in the planning stage. The proposal, however, described only generally the kinds of projects that were or will be implemented, for example projects that remove migration barriers and reduce sediment. The proposal would be improved if the sponsors had specifically identified the habitat projects that have been implemented so far and their location, and provided a summary of the limiting factors each is addressing and progress to date. Future projects, in so far as they are currently known, and possible funding sources should be identified and discussed. It is not possible to determine if currently funded habitat enhancement projects have been successful since the actual implementations of restoration actions was accomplished by the project’s partners.

Adaptive changes to the project are primarily improvements in implementation techniques that are typical of most habitat enhancement projects. Recent expansion of the project to ceded lands and most recently into southeast Washington are newer activities.

Evaluation of Results

This project is an umbrella project whose purpose is planning and coordination of habitat protection and restoration projects in streams in Northeast Oregon and Southeast Washington. The project will coordinate with partners to identify priority locations for habitat enhancement and select proposals that address the major limiting factors. This project does not have the capacity to provide direct funding for habitat enhancement projects and so must acquire funding for them from external sources.

Although this project has identified and acquired funding for some habitat enhancement projects and has several projects in the planning stage, overall it seems to have had difficulty gaining traction for a number of reasons identified in the Annual Reports. The sponsors apparently have had some difficulty enlisting the help of qualified partners to do the work. From the 2009-2010 Annual Report: “One of the largest issues that impeded the ability to rapidly and efficiently get projects started appeared to simply be the capacity of some entities to work on these projects.” No further details were provided. The sponsors state that they have made significant progress in dealing with this issue.

A second issue is difficulty in obtaining funding for projects. The sponsors have had some problems gaining funding through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW) program, apparently due to a disagreement over project priorities (2010-2012 Annual Report), and so have had to seek much of their funding from external sources. Although the sponsors have had some success on acquiring external funding for projects, they state that the process is both time consuming and costly. The sponsors advocate for a direct allocation of funds to the project (2009-2010 and 2010-2012 Annual Reports), much in the same way as the GRMW.

The third issue is what the sponsors refer to as “local politics” (2009-2010 Annual Report). This issue apparently involves difficulty in establishing cooperative relationships with some public entities. No reasons for this were given in the Annual Reports. This problem probably should not be construed as the general case since a number of projects have been successfully implemented which undoubtedly required cooperation between the NPT and public and private entities.

The ISRP is concerned that this project duplicates many of the same functions as the GRMW, and thus there does not seem to be a clear need for the project. It does appear, however, that this project is working in areas of the Grande Ronde and Imnaha that are not a major focus of the GRMW program.

The sponsors appear to be working hard to stabilize this project and have several projects in the planning stage, but they are as yet unfunded. However, they have encountered significant difficulties that impede progress, as described above. A particularly serious concern is the uncertainty in securing funding for their habitat enhancement projects. The future of the project clearly hinges on the ability of the sponsors to obtain stable sources of funding to support habitat enhancement projects. Unless the sponsors can overcome these difficulties, the success of this project is uncertain. A new project leader was hired in 2012 and perhaps, with this change in leadership, the project can overcome the problems it has so far encountered.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The sponsors cite relationships with many BPA funded projects in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington, although they do not provide many details concerning how they are cooperating or coordinating with these projects. For a project that is based on extensive coordination, a clearer and more detailed explanation of existing and planned future relationships with potential partners, ongoing projects, and other planning efforts should be given.

Climate change and non-native species are discussed as emerging limiting factors. The sponsors feel that the habitat enhancement actions this project is undertaking will help to ameliorate impacts of climate change. The sponsors identify brook trout as an important non-native species, but they do not discuss how great of a threat this species is to native fishes.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables describe the process that will be undertaken to prioritize and select habitat projects for implementation. There are no quantitative goals for the deliverables, or measureable endpoints or benchmarks outlined, making it difficult to determine if success has been achieved. At a minimum the deliverables should identify the priority locations for habitat projects and why they are priorities, the particular limiting factors that are being addressed at each priority location, the projects that are being planned to address these factors, and the potential sources of funding for these projects.

This project has encountered serious difficulties, which the sponsors candidly discuss in their Annual Reports, and which are detailed in the History section of this review. These difficulties include enlisting the help of qualified partners to do the work, acquiring external funding to support habitat enhancement projects, and establishing cooperative relationships with some public entities. It is not clear at this point how successful the sponsors have been in dealing with these difficulties. If these problems are not overcome, the success of this project is highly uncertain. The proposal would have been improved significantly if the sponsors addressed these difficulties forthrightly in the proposal and discussed the progress they have made in resolving them.

The need for this project is unclear. The project appears to duplicate many of the functions of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW), a well-established and successful project that has played a key role in implementing habitat projects in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Neither in the proposal nor in their presentation to the ISRP were the sponsors able to clearly explain, on scientific grounds, how their project differed significantly from the GRMW and why it was needed in addition to the GRMW. This project, unlike the GRMW, provides no direct funding for projects but will seek external funding once habitat enhancement proposals have been selected. This introduces considerable uncertainty into the funding process. The ISRP suggests that this project be consolidated with the GRMW program and, possibly, with existing Tucannon planning activities, or that the sponsors provide a scientifically defensible reason for not doing so.

The objectives and deliverables broadly describe the process for project selection and design but provide little information on specific outcomes. The proposal does not identify the location of priority areas for restoration, limiting factors that need to be addressed at these locations, specific projects being planned, and how these projects address the limiting factors. The proposal does not provide quantitative goals or benchmarks for the objectives and deliverables which makes it difficult to determine whether progress is being made toward achieving the objectives. This information is necessary to evaluate the scientific merit of the proposal.

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

This is an umbrella project whose purpose is planning and coordination of habitat protection and restoration projects in streams in Northeast Oregon and Southeast Washington including the Grande Ronde subbasin, Imnaha subbasin, and Pine Watershed in Northeast Oregon and the Tucannon and Asotin Creek subbasins in Southeast Washington. It also is involved in outreach and education. The project will coordinate with partners to identify priority locations for habitat enhancement, select proposals that address the limiting factors identified through the FCPRS Biological Opinion Expert Panel process, and seek funding for these proposals. The sponsors state that the project is consistent with the 2008 FCRPS BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and other tribal, state, and federal recovery and monitoring plans.

Regarding uncertainty in project funding, the sponsors state in their 2009-10 Annual Report: “Another important issue that cannot be understated is the lack of direct project funds to implement restoration activities. It simply adds over a year to the total time frame for completion of projects if the sponsor has to seek outside funding sources to accomplish them. This situation demands much more time committed to the project, simply in terms of acquiring the funding to implement and additional reporting requirements.” The difficulty in acquiring stable funding sources clearly jeopardizes the project’s chances for success.

Part of the difficulty in acquiring funding seems to stem from a disagreement with the GRMW over project prioritization and funding. The July 2010-January 2012 Annual Report states “The Protect and Restore Northeast Oregon contract had much success in identifying projects but little success in implementing projects. This was primarily due to two causes. Disagreement between the project leader, the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and others over the efficacy and priority of selected projects prevented project implementation. Unfortunately, some projects that the project leader advocated for were denied funding by the Grande Ronde Model Watershed.” Discussion of this difference in viewpoints in the proposal may have helped resolve some of the ISRP’s concern over duplication of effort. For example, what were the scientific reasons for the differences in viewpoints between the project leader and the GRMW?

The sponsors list the GRMW as one of its cooperators. Given that this project appears to have a similar function as the GRMW, and that there apparently was some disagreement in the past over project selection, it would be useful if the sponsors provided more details on the nature of their current coordination efforts with the GRMW.

The proposal would have been improved if the sponsors had identified the specific habitat projects that have been funded and where funding had been acquired. It also would have been helpful if the sponsors identified projects that are in the planning stage but have not yet been funded. Since many partners are involved, and since they will be and have been doing most of the actual on the ground implementation, it would be helpful if details were provided on the roles and restoration actions of the partners.

The Objectives, in a very general sense, are reasonable. However, since there are no quantifiable goals for the objectives or for the deliverables, the objectives cannot be evaluated for success. Objective 2 pertains to prioritization of locations for habitat protection and restoration. The proposal implies that a prioritization process is already in place and some projects have already been selected and funded through this process. It would be useful if the sponsors had discussed the prioritization process in somewhat more detail. The Key Personnel appear to have the expertise to accomplish the proposed coordination/ administration although it is unclear as to who will have responsibilities for specific work items.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The sponsors have succeeded in acquiring funding for some projects and have several projects in the planning stage. The proposal, however, described only generally the kinds of projects that were or will be implemented, for example projects that remove migration barriers and reduce sediment. The proposal would be improved if the sponsors had specifically identified the habitat projects that have been implemented so far and their location, and provided a summary of the limiting factors each is addressing and progress to date. Future projects, in so far as they are currently known, and possible funding sources should be identified and discussed. It is not possible to determine if currently funded habitat enhancement projects have been successful since the actual implementations of restoration actions was accomplished by the project’s partners.

Adaptive changes to the project are primarily improvements in implementation techniques that are typical of most habitat enhancement projects. Recent expansion of the project to ceded lands and most recently into southeast Washington are newer activities.

Evaluation of Results

This project is an umbrella project whose purpose is planning and coordination of habitat protection and restoration projects in streams in Northeast Oregon and Southeast Washington. The project will coordinate with partners to identify priority locations for habitat enhancement and select proposals that address the major limiting factors. This project does not have the capacity to provide direct funding for habitat enhancement projects and so must acquire funding for them from external sources.

Although this project has identified and acquired funding for some habitat enhancement projects and has several projects in the planning stage, overall it seems to have had difficulty gaining traction for a number of reasons identified in the Annual Reports. The sponsors apparently have had some difficulty enlisting the help of qualified partners to do the work. From the 2009-2010 Annual Report: “One of the largest issues that impeded the ability to rapidly and efficiently get projects started appeared to simply be the capacity of some entities to work on these projects.” No further details were provided. The sponsors state that they have made significant progress in dealing with this issue.

A second issue is difficulty in obtaining funding for projects. The sponsors have had some problems gaining funding through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW) program, apparently due to a disagreement over project priorities (2010-2012 Annual Report), and so have had to seek much of their funding from external sources. Although the sponsors have had some success on acquiring external funding for projects, they state that the process is both time consuming and costly. The sponsors advocate for a direct allocation of funds to the project (2009-2010 and 2010-2012 Annual Reports), much in the same way as the GRMW.

The third issue is what the sponsors refer to as “local politics” (2009-2010 Annual Report). This issue apparently involves difficulty in establishing cooperative relationships with some public entities. No reasons for this were given in the Annual Reports. This problem probably should not be construed as the general case since a number of projects have been successfully implemented which undoubtedly required cooperation between the NPT and public and private entities.

The ISRP is concerned that this project duplicates many of the same functions as the GRMW, and thus there does not seem to be a clear need for the project. It does appear, however, that this project is working in areas of the Grande Ronde and Imnaha that are not a major focus of the GRMW program.

The sponsors appear to be working hard to stabilize this project and have several projects in the planning stage, but they are as yet unfunded. However, they have encountered significant difficulties that impede progress, as described above. A particularly serious concern is the uncertainty in securing funding for their habitat enhancement projects. The future of the project clearly hinges on the ability of the sponsors to obtain stable sources of funding to support habitat enhancement projects. Unless the sponsors can overcome these difficulties, the success of this project is uncertain. A new project leader was hired in 2012 and perhaps, with this change in leadership, the project can overcome the problems it has so far encountered.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The sponsors cite relationships with many BPA funded projects in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington, although they do not provide many details concerning how they are cooperating or coordinating with these projects. For a project that is based on extensive coordination, a clearer and more detailed explanation of existing and planned future relationships with potential partners, ongoing projects, and other planning efforts should be given.

Climate change and non-native species are discussed as emerging limiting factors. The sponsors feel that the habitat enhancement actions this project is undertaking will help to ameliorate impacts of climate change. The sponsors identify brook trout as an important non-native species, but they do not discuss how great of a threat this species is to native fishes.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables describe the process that will be undertaken to prioritize and select habitat projects for implementation. There are no quantitative goals for the deliverables, or measureable endpoints or benchmarks outlined, making it difficult to determine if success has been achieved. At a minimum the deliverables should identify the priority locations for habitat projects and why they are priorities, the particular limiting factors that are being addressed at each priority location, the projects that are being planned to address these factors, and the potential sources of funding for these projects.