In response to the decision of the Council and BPA, the project does not implement any on-the-ground restoration actions but collaborates with Umbrella projects, primarily the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, and other regional partners to develop proposals, assist in identifying high priority habitats, and work with watershed groups. As such, the scientific criteria and benefits to fish and wildlife are developed and documented through the collaborating programs. The proposal and previous letters of support from the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and Snake River Salmon Recovery Board demonstrate that the Nez Perce Tribe is working effectively with these other groups. A new project director was hired in 2018. Since 2018, BPA increased funding for the project based on project refinement, development of stronger partnerships, and the need for restoration on private land.

The previous ISRP review (ISRP 2014-1) recommended that the project was “Not Applicable” for scientific review. The ISRP finds that the previous recommendation continues to be appropriate and recommends that this proposal also is Not Applicable for scientific review because the project does not implement restoration actions but rather coordinates with other projects that are responsible for restoration prioritization and implementation. However, if the project does transition towards its “longer-term objective… to more on-the-ground habitat improvements,” ISRP review of future proposals would be appropriate.

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 and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

In response to the decision of the Council and BPA, the project collaborates with Umbrella projects and partners to develop proposals, assist in identifying high priority habitats, and work with watershed groups to develop projects. The proponents contribute to the prioritization and planning of restoration projects involving floodplain reconnection, fish passage replacements, flow restoration, channel reconstruction, riparian planting, and road decommissioning. The project refers to several major regional recovery plans to identify limiting factors and participates in project prioritization and selection through the Atlas process. Major project goals and SMART objectives are provided, but the proposal does not explain how these objectives were developed. It does not clearly identify the specific entity or project that developed each objective or is responsible for implementation. For some, it is possible to relate them to projects described in the previous Methods section. The ISRP encourages the proponents to clearly explain the sources and scientific basis for its goals and objectives in future documents.

Q2: Methods

The project works with other groups to prioritize and plan restoration projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins in northeast Oregon, and the Tucannon River, Alpowa Creek, and Asotin Creek watersheds in southeast Washington. The proponents assisted the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and Snake River Salmon Recovery Board in developing tools such as the Atlas, Tucannon Subbasin Plan, and Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington, and Asotin County Conceptual Restoration Plan. They participated in the Tucannon 2021 Assessment. No timeline is provided in the proposal, and methods for how the proponents contribute to the individual projects was not always clear. Because the scope of this project is somewhat vague to the ISRP. Given the known planning and evaluation meetings of the larger groups, it would be reasonable for the proponents to provide an overall timeline and structure for the known collaborative meetings and other activities in which they participate. The ISRP requests that the proponents include such a timeline in their next annual report.

The proponents make it clear that “The main objective of the project is to coordinate with the two umbrella projects in the area.” Nevertheless, they provide a vision for the future: “The longer-term objective for this project is to shift to more on-the-ground habitat improvements.” If this transition occurs, a future proposal should be reviewed by the ISRP.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project participates in prioritization and planning of restoration projects with basin partners. As such, the primary implementation and effectiveness monitoring is conducted by the other programs. It would be beneficial to identify the specific monitoring that was conducted or will be conducted for the specific projects listed. Overall results were provided for most projects.

The proponents appear to be using recent results and recommendations from AEM to select and design restoration projects.

No structured evaluation or adaptive management process is identified. It would be useful for the proponents to identify their specific steps and schedules for evaluation of the project. This should be included in the next annual report.

Question 4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife

Overall, the project and its cooperators replaced or removed three culverts, screened an irrigation diversion, constructed three miles of riparian fencing, replaced two mainstem irrigation passage barriers, participated in the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Project, participated in an irrigation consolidation feasibility study, implemented a side channel and floodplain restoration project, and assisted in the development of the Wallowa County Atlas. There is no landscape-level assessment of the project’s benefits for fish and wildlife. The Atlas project provides an ongoing tracking, mapping, and summarization of the contributions of the restoration efforts at the basin scale. Even though the project is not responsible for implementing or leading the planning of the restoration projects, at some point it is important for the project to clearly document its contribution and relative influences on habitat conditions within the basins.