The sponsors state that this project is not tasked with implementing action effectiveness monitoring. Instead monitoring will be performed by projects that are referenced in the “Relationship to Other Projects” portion of their proposal. They will, however, work with BPA and Council Staff to determine whether their proposed restoration actions could be considered for use in a future AEM or ISEMP monitoring programs.

Comments on sponsor responses to specific ISRP questions:

1) Fish population sampling by species. For example, bull trout are not listed as a focal or secondary focal species but this threatened species is apparently present in the upper Umatilla system. Is any of the restoration work specifically targeted at bull trout or lamprey?

The response asserts that the restoration efforts are comprehensive and will benefit all native aquatic species, although the emphasis is clearly on anadromous salmonids. Statements about limiting factors, while plausible, should be backed up with field data, i.e., evidence that clearly shows an improvement in some aspect of native fish life cycles when a limiting factor is addressed. The Meacham Creek restoration efforts, for example, will likely benefit native fishes and freshwater mussels. Hopefully, monitoring will demonstrate improvements in these resources in addition to Chinook and steelhead.

The hypothesis that restoration actions, which are designed to address such factors as water temperatures, high sediment loads, and channel simplification, will benefit multiple species should be tested. For example, will before and after assessments or other types of monitoring be performed to document expected changes in abundance of salmonids, lamprey, and mussels in response to improvements in water quality and physical habitat at restoration sites?

2) How will long-term sustainability of the restoration work be monitored? Some of the improvement projects such as dam removals need little follow-up, but other types of work such as riparian re-vegetation, in-stream structure placement, and bioengineered side channels deserve post-treatment monitoring.

The response indicates that “design assessment monitoring” can take place for up to 3-5 years for “large” projects. Based on the response, we interpret this to mean that project staff members check on the implementation of the restoration action to ensure that the work was implemented as designed and has not been rendered ineffective by some unforeseen factor. While this is very useful information, it is somewhat different from answering the question “did the project achieve the desired ecological benefits that were intended?” which was why we
suggested additional effectiveness monitoring. The ISRP was also hoping that at least some of the project sites would be monitored to determine if periodic maintenance or repairs would be required to maintain desired ecological functions. The response to the question about riparian improvement was excellent, and we encourage vegetation transect monitoring for a time sufficient to show that riparian plantings have not experienced excessive browse damage.

We were encouraged to hear that CHaMP sampling protocols have been established in Meacham Creek, and we urge the sponsors to seek additional CHaMP, ISEMP, or AEM sites on other projects.

3) What is being done to identify production bottlenecks that may be hindering the anticipated response to habitat improvements? Are there other factors that are not currently being monitored that could be included in future monitoring efforts? How can new hypotheses be tested?

It was somewhat unclear how monitoring the production of juvenile steelhead from the Upper Umatilla River, Meacham Creek, and Birch Creek would provide a direct measure of habitat restoration effectiveness unless there was a corresponding (and relatively accurate) estimate of spawning adults in these tributaries, which would enable measurement of changes in smolts-per-adult over time. Hopefully both returning adults and emigrating smolts will be enumerated.

The mainstem Umatilla research should remain a priority. PIT-tagging emigrating steelhead or Chinook at tributary junctions may allow overall estimates of passage survival to Three-Mile Dam, but the actual causes of mortality (e.g., water quality problems, predation, winter habitat deficiencies) cannot be known without developing testable hypotheses that address specific potentially limiting factors. The response does suggest this, but what those testable hypotheses might be and how they would be addressed through monitoring has apparently not yet been described in detail. The CTUIR’s biomonitoring program is mentioned, but additional information in the response would have been helpful.

A collaborative study to identify factors limiting salmonid production in the Umatilla was recently started by the CTUIR and ODFW. The production of juvenile steelhead in Meacham and Birch Creeks and in the Upper Umatilla is being measured. Fish are receiving PIT tags and the survival of these fish to Three Mile Falls Dam is being estimated. Identification of factors that are influencing survival would be accomplished by correlating selected factors with survival. An efficient approach would be to directly investigate the importance of the factors hypothesized to influence survival, e.g. water temperature, predation, stream flow and turbidity, and the abundance of over-wintering habitat. In the case of predation, surveys could be conducted to determine the abundance of potential avian and fish predators and their diets during different times of the year by location. The abundance of juvenile steelhead would also need to be measured at each location during each time period. Additionally, such factors as stream temperature, flow, velocity and turbidity on species-specific predation rates would need to be considered before estimating the potential impact of each predator species on juvenile steelhead. Directed research of this type would help identify where and what might be reducing juvenile steelhead survival in the mainstem Umatilla River. We realize that the project sponsors have stated that they are not able to conduct such monitoring as part of this project; however, we strongly encourage them to work with partners who are engaged in effectiveness monitoring so that key questions about limiting factors can be answered.

4) An assessment of how these habitat improvements will provide buffering to shocks to the system, for example climate change may increase the variability in precipitation over years. How will the habitat actions deal with a wetter than normal year or a drier than normal year?

The response makes a persuasive case for restoring floodplains to help buffer streams from unusual environmental variability. The response also states, with reference to Meacham Creek, “Restoration of floodplain processes shall be duplicated throughout the Umatilla Subbasin.” However, it seems unlikely that floodplain restoration will be significantly enlarged in agricultural lands to the extent seen along Meacham Creek. What can be done along streams where full floodplain restoration is not feasible?

The potential of hyporheic flow to help lessen the impact of high temperatures was adequately discussed, but it was not completely clear how the information from the hyporheic studies would translate into management actions.

Evaluation of Results

The project sponsors have demonstrated an excellent track record of getting things done and working with landowners in a subbasin where receptivity to ecological restoration is uneven. We hold the Meacham Creek restoration effort and accompanying effectiveness monitoring near the gold standard in assessing tributary habitat improvements. However, we are also concerned that some other types of restoration work included in this project may not be receiving the monitoring attention they deserve. Because the CTUIR staff does not possess the resources to carry out the biological effectiveness monitoring that is needed, we strongly encourage continued collaboration with other projects that are engaged in such monitoring in the Umatilla subbasin and also that a few of the restoration sites be considered as candidates
for inclusion in the AEM and ISEMP programs.

The response states that project sponsors are unable to engage in additional RM&E, as the ISRP suggested, without additional support. If that is the case, two qualifications are required to ensure that the project meets scientific criteria:

Monitoring plans for each project site should be clearly referenced in the BPA statement of work/contract. If any biological effectiveness monitoring will take place at a site through the efforts of other programs (for example, ISEMP, AEM, or the CTUIR effectiveness monitoring project), there should be a description of how such monitoring information will be utilized in this project. If monitoring will be limited to design assessment monitoring, it should be clear that the restoration site will not include biological effectiveness monitoring or inclusion in the CHaMP habitat status and trends monitoring program.

The project sponsors should be strongly encouraged to add additional sites to the AEM or ISEMP networks. The ISRP is very impressed with the monitoring taking place at Meacham Creek. However, restoration actions at some other Umatilla sites address limiting factors for which the Meacham Creek work is not particularly applicable, and therefore the Meacham Creek restoration monitoring should not be used as a surrogate for all other habitat improvement projects in the subbasin. Adding other restoration sites to the AEM or ISEMP network will expand monitoring coverage to a greater range of environmental issues in the Umatilla River system.

The proposal contains abundant detail, and the ISRP compliments project sponsors on submitting a thorough description of the project. A little more information is needed on the effectiveness monitoring components. Specifically, we would like additional information on:

1) Fish population sampling by species. For example, bull trout are not listed as a focal or secondary focal species but this threatened species is apparently present in the upper Umatilla system. Is any of the restoration work specifically targeted at bull trout or lamprey?

2) How will long-term sustainability of the restoration work be monitored? Some of the improvement projects such as dam removals need little follow-up, but other types of work such as riparian revegetation, instream structure placement, and bioengineered side channels deserve post-treatment monitoring.

3) What is being done to identify production bottlenecks that may be hindering the anticipated response to habitat improvements? Are there other factors that are not currently being monitored that could be included in future monitoring efforts? How can new hypotheses be tested?

4) An assessment of how these habitat improvements will provide buffering to shocks to the system, for example climate change may increase the variability in precipitation over years. How will the habitat actions deal with a wetter than normal year or a drier than normal year?

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

This is a large project that involves a suite of habitat restoration efforts in the Umatilla subbasin. Many of the activities have been underway for a decade or more; for example, the Meacham Creek floodplain restoration work was in progress when the ISRP last visited the area six years ago. The significance to regional programs, technical background, and project objectives were, in general, explained in considerable detail. The emphasis of the project on re-establishing natural watershed processes is commendable and is consistent with regional plans that call for establishing healthy, sustainable habitats and fish populations.

The Umatilla subbasin is divided into two areas: agriculturally-dominated lowlands and forested headwaters. In this proposal, priority is given to restoration activities in a headwater stream (Meacham Creek), a transitional stream (Birch Creek), and the lower Umatilla River mainstem (agricultural lands). Each stream has its own set of environmental challenges, but they all share a few potentially limiting factors such as stream temperature in common. Likewise, the portfolio of restoration activities in the proposal addresses a variety of restoration issues and is more limited to one or two problems. The ISRP agrees that diversifying restoration actions is more likely to improve the overall spawning and rearing environment of the Umatilla River and its tributaries than focusing on a limited subset of problems.

All actions are predicated on habitat being limiting, but it was not clear which feature of the habitat is limiting, for example is it water temperature, gravel for spawning/eggs/fry, juvenile habitat? In some cases, such as a barrier removal to allow access to spawning areas or fish ladders to improve access to spawning areas, these actions seem immediately justified, but other actions such as noxious weed removal, while appearing to be worthwhile so that native plants can reestablish, need a clearer link to what habitat features are being improved; that is, non-native plants still provide cover.

The project prioritizes where restoration should occur, develops conservation agreements with private landowners, engages in fish passage and habitat restoration, maintains existing habitat restoration actions, develops and evaluates effectiveness monitoring tools and also performs effectiveness monitoring. And project staff members participate in public processes to review proposed developments in the Umatilla that may adversely impact existing floodplain habitat.

Project activities are guided by the Umatilla River/Willow Creek Subbasin Plan, a five-year action plan co-developed with ODFW, Umatilla River Vision, Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia Distinct Population Segment, a Bull Trout Recovery Plan, Meacham Creek Watershed Analysis and Action Plan, and the Umatilla and Meacham Watershed Assessment.

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

The proposal goes into great detail about previous restoration activities, and their progress reports contain many documents authored by one of their principal contractors, TetraTech. Project sponsors state that monitoring, in general, is not focused on individual restoration actions but rather on gaining a basinwide perspective. While this objective is worthwhile, much of the evidence in the results section of the proposal describes project-specific improvements, and we were given limited information about basinwide conditions although the temperature data were an exception. Some of the actions are innovative and have been worth the monitoring effort. The attempt to reconnect hyporheic flow pathways with the stream channel to provide natural nutrient inputs and thermal refugia is a good example.

Because the proposal was so long and there was considerable redundancy in some of the sections, it was a little unclear how the results of the different restoration activities have been incorporated into management changes. Evidence for adaptive management is clear with regard to securing water rights and decommissioning irrigation dams, but the proposal did not provide much detail about how the monitoring program had been altered in response to new findings or questions. In fairness to project sponsors, however, the biological monitoring portion of the project is just now ramping up.

There have been extensive habitat improvements in the past, but these have yet failed to show any evidence of improvements in outcomes. Given the high variation in the natural response over time, this is not surprising. Many habitat actions may not increase the mean responses, but reduce the variability in response; for example, good habitat is better able to buffer populations against disturbances. In future years, rather than reporting on changes in the mean response, some exploration should be undertaken about the resiliency of the system to changes brought about by improvement to habitats.

Most of the project’s activities have taken place in the Meacham Creek watershed. The most significant one was renovation of over a mile of simple stream channel into a braided system. To accomplish this over 2,800 feet of levee was removed and complex pools and large woody debris were added. The project has also completed extensive riparian fencing, planted thousands of native plants, monitored stream temperatures, completed CHaMP based surveys in Meacham Creek and classified stream segments in the basin using standard and statistically derived methods. In addition, the project is developing two new tools to assess habitat restoration actions. One relies on macroinvertebrates and is being developed by Oregon State University. The other employs hyporheic water temperatures and turnover rates and is being developed by Montana State University.

The sponsors hypothesize that high mortality during the juvenile out-migration period may be largely responsible for the inability to demonstrate positive fish responses to tributary restoration. The project is using adaptive management, and results from previous restoration actions are guiding new efforts. For example, new channel restoration efforts are now incorporating designs that promote hyporheic exchange by removing levees and spur dikes to control water temperature. Furthermore, data from a fish use survey were used to identify high use areas and the attributes of these locations are now being replicated in their habitat restoration projects.

This project is a good example of a serious effort to address a variety of habitat improvement issues over an entire subbasin. The missing link in the effectiveness monitoring program is lack of knowledge of mainstem Umatilla River survival. With this added component, the project should be able to demonstrate long-term improvement in abundance and resiliency of target species.

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

The habitat restoration project is a part of a larger four-part program designed to recover salmonids in the Umatilla subbasin. Other parts include a hatchery program, flow restoration, and fish passage remediation. Project staff coordinate and participate with many agencies, including the Umatilla Basin Restoration Team, ODFW, U.S. Forest Service, Umatilla Soil and Water Conservation District, Umatilla Basin Watershed Council, Freshwater Trust, OWEB, Oregon State University, Montana State University, and Union Pacific Railroad.

Climate change was recognized as an emerging limiting factor. Changes in runoff timing, water quantity, water temperature regimes, and snowpack could have profound effects. Elevated stream temperatures and reduced water flows could also reduce the availability of cool water habitats. Channel restoration efforts that produce sinuous multithreaded channels, however, are expected to provide significant temperature buffering. The current plan is to use such designs and build some resiliency into their restored habitats.

Some thought should also be given on how to measure the resiliency of the system to environmental shocks. This system may be better served by improving connections with floodplains that have no impact on available habitat for most years but serve as a buffer for severe rain storms events.

From the graphs of the number of naturally produced steelhead smolts (Fig. 6; Fig. 13) and egg-to-smolt survival (Fig. 7; Fig. 14) it appears that productivity of anadromous salmonids in the Umatilla River system may be declining in spite of the extensive investment in habitat restoration. This suggests that there might be an unrecognized environmental factor limiting production. It would be helpful for the proposal to suggest hypotheses about why biological performance, of summer steelhead at least, has declined, as well as steps that could be taken to test these hypotheses. This could include factors that are currently receiving little attention, such as a buildup of fish predators in the system.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and work elements were described in detail, and metrics and methods were referenced to CHaMP and monitoringmethods.org protocols well enough to get a clear picture of what will be done.

The ISRP hopes that the partnership with ODFW will result in increased biological monitoring. Because the amount and diversity of habitat improvements is high, the Umatilla River system is an ideal location to examine the relationship between restoration and fish response. Some suggestions include: (1) expanding the food web studies. Once per year sampling is not enough to gage restoration effectiveness; (2) monitor the persistence of habitat improvements, such as riparian plantings; (3) install some PIT-tag detectors in selected tributaries (Meacham Creek, Birch Creek, and perhaps Butter Creek) to study seasonal fish movements and smolt timing. Because these streams get very warm, it would be useful to see where juveniles go to avoid high temperatures and when they leave the tributaries as smolts; and (4) surveys of upstream use of streams opened up by irrigation dam removals.

Project sponsors state that many habitat improvement sites will be studied using a BACI approach. If this is the preferred approach, identification of suitable unenhanced reference sites will be critical to measuring restoration success. It would be helpful if the proposal showed the location of reference locations and explained why they are suitable controls for treated areas. Project staff could also consider using a "staircase" approach to monitoring results, in which one or two streams are designated as unenhanced reference watersheds and restoration is applied to other streams in a sequential manner. In effect, this is what has been happening.

We also suggest that additional monitoring be focused on juvenile survival and growth. The declining egg-to-smolt survival trend is illuminating, but it would be very helpful if the life history stage suffering the greatest mortality increases were known in better detail. Are limiting factors more apparent in summer than winter, for example? Information on fish growth rates and condition can also reveal when food resources could be limiting, and if restoration is improving trophic productivity.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Macroinvertebrates are highly variable in space and time. For example, collecting samples 500 meters away from a specific location and a week later can give completely different answers. This proposal revisits the same sites at the same time during the year. We suggest expanding the sampling around the target time to account for shifts in emergence of invertebrates. It may be preferable to try and match the sampling to events in the life history of the fish, for example which invertebrates are present when smolts start their outmigration to provide food?

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 9:51:37 AM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 9:51:55 AM.

Consistent with the BPA Programmatic Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM) program reviewed by the ISRP (ISRP 2013-2) and recommended for implementation by the Council on June 17, 2013, it is not the responsibility of this project to provide data or document protocols of other projects for Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (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). 

 

The ISRP recommendation for additional RM&E is beyond what is being proposed as part of this project.  Any additional RM&E beyond what is currently being implemented will be considered by BPA and the Council.

 

However, both the CTUIR Umatilla Anadromous Fish Habitat Project (UAFHP) staff in coordination with CTUIR and ODFW RM&E project staff working in the Umatilla River Subbasin have reviewed the ISRP’s response and additional questions, and we have provided professional feedback specific to the following ISRP questions.

 

1) Fish population sampling by species. For example, bull trout are not listed as a focal or secondary focal species but this threatened species is apparently present in the upper Umatilla system. Is any of the restoration work specifically targeted at bull trout or lamprey?

 

As previously stated in the proposal the goal of the UAFHP is to protect, enhance, and restore functional floodplain, channel and watershed processes to provide sustainable and healthy habitat for aquatic species in the Umatilla Subbasin.  Project work supports achievement of biological objectives and strategies and management plans established in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan and the NPPC’s F&W Program, and further support the CTUIR ecological and First Foods mission statements to sustain production.  During development of the original proposal CTUIR UAFHP and Bonneville Power Administration staff discussed if other native fish species should be identified as focal species and discussed within the proposal but determined the intent of this project was to address habitat limiting salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla Subbasin.  Thus we did not focus on proposal sections specific to other resident fish species.

 

However, the CTUIR restoration work is a holistic approach that targets restoration of critical processes for all native species.  This approach ensures that restoration work is implemented in a manner that enhances and protects the life cycle of fish species like bulltrout, lamprey, salmon and trout, freshwater mussels, and other native fish species.  A process based approach addresses identified limiting factors that ultimately have resulted in declines of all fish species native to the Umatilla River, such as water temperatures, high sediment loads, channel simplification and lack of habitat complexity.  Bulltrout and lamprey have been impacted by similar declines in habitat function as anadromous fish species.  One example where our work has directly benefitted bulltrout for instance is the work we have completed in Meacham Creek.  Exploring solutions with Union Pacific Railroad for improving migratory habitat in the Meacham Creek Subbasin is identified as the highest priority in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan within the Umatilla/Walla Walla Recovery Unit (RU).  Furthermore, restoring floodplain function and channel complexity is the second highest priority identified in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan within the Umatilla/Walla Walla RU.  Altering the dike in the mainstem of Meacham Creek has been identified in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan as an action that would improve channel complexity and improve fish habitat and potential use by bull trout.  The construction and maintenance of the Union Pacific Railroad, which parallels mainstem Meacham Creek, along with dikes or levees in place to protect the railroad from flooding, is identified in the Bull Trout Draft Recovery Plan as significantly altering stream and channel complexity, riparian shade, and likely affecting stream temperatures (USFWS 2002).

 

2) How will long-term sustainability of the restoration work be monitored? Some of the improvement projects such as dam removals need little follow-up, but other types of work such as riparian re-vegetation, in-stream structure placement, and bioengineered side channels deserve post-treatment monitoring.

 

In order to satisfy project effectiveness monitoring criteria, the CTUIR utilizes data collected in the pre- and post-project design and implementation process to evaluate the final forms and functions of restoration actions.  This typically occurs through a “design assessment” approach prior to and after completion of the active work in efforts previously described in the proposal and methodologies.  CTUIR utilizes design assessment data as a baseline for monitoring long-term geomorphological response from project activities.  The window of opportunity for design assessment monitoring on large scale projects often expands about three to five years. 

 

In addition to design assessment data, CTUIR has established CHaMP sampling locations in Meacham Creek in order to monitor long-term physical and biological response to habitat work.  The CHaMP protocol has become the standard protocol for the Columbia River Basin monitoring programs evaluating the major population groups listed under the ESA.  CHaMP provides a highly effective and consistent basis for monitoring geomorphic and habitat conditions in Meacham Creek as part of CTUIR biomonitoring program (2009-014-00).  Three sample reaches have been established in Meacham Creek (1 current treatment reach, 1 future treatment reach, and a control reach; described in proposal) for establishment of long-term monitoring.  Any additional ongoing or long-term monitoring of geomorphological features are often not covered under BPA funding but repeated by CTUIR at a programmatic level when feasible using other cost share dollars following significant intervals of time or following significant flow events indicating geomorphic change.  CTUIR shares a long-term interest in monitoring geomorphological features for sustainability, such as structure placement and bioengineered side-channels.

 

In regards to vegetation recovery, transects are established within project areas on large scale projects in an effort to track and monitor the survivorship of post-project plantings.  Transects consist of 100-meter transect lines with ten 7-square-meter circular plots (1.5-meter radius), with plot centers at every 10 meters (10 m, 20 m….100 m).  Each transect covers approximately 70 square meters (700 square feet) and CTUIR tallies the total number of live and dead plants per species and makes a note of suspected mortality (e.g., browse, site conditions).

 

3) What is being done to identify production bottlenecks that may be hindering the anticipated response to habitat improvements? Are there other factors that are not currently being monitored that could be included in future monitoring efforts? How can new hypotheses be tested?

 

Available data suggests that poor survival in the Umatilla River of juvenile steelhead produced in tributaries may be restricting the increase in smolt production that was anticipated from habitat enhancement.  A collaborative study between CTUIR and ODFW was implemented in 2012 (Projects 1990-005-01 and 1989-024-01) to investigate this potential production bottleneck.  The objective of the study is to monitor the production of juvenile steelhead in Meacham Creek, Birch Creek, and the upper Umatilla River and survival from these tributaries to Three Mile Falls Dam.  The monitoring approach will provide a more direct measure of fish response to habitat work being done in these tributaries and PIT tagging of emigrating fish will help identify production bottlenecks, specifically parr and smolt survival in the Umatilla River.  Results from the study will help guide future monitoring efforts that will likely need to focus on specific habitat factors that limit production.  For example, overwinter parr survival in the Umatilla River may be limited by the shortage of silt free large-particle substrate needed for winter concealment or predation by birds may be the mechanism for poor smolt survival.  Understanding where and when mortality takes place is necessary to ensure restoration actions are targeting production bottlenecks.

 

Furthermore, CTUIR’s biomonitoring program (2009-014-00) will be examining the possible correlations between juvenile salmonids and habitat.  Testable hypotheses shall determine if restorations actions increase juvenile density, survival, and growth.  Juvenile mark/recapture methods will be implemented for collecting empirical fish data in parallel with CHaMP sampling for determining a response to habitat restoration.

 

4) An assessment of how these habitat improvements will provide buffering to shocks to the system, for example climate change may increase the variability in precipitation over years. How will the habitat actions deal with a wetter than normal year or a drier than normal year?

 

Collectively, agencies are taking many steps towards minimizing the negative effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and habitats across the country and within the Pacific Northwest.  These activities vary but include a variety of climate adaptation efforts that generally include adaptation strategy development, revising and updating recovery and action plans for climate change, vulnerability assessments, and other climate-related research such as downscaling climate models for regional use.  However, not all efforts to respond to climate change require this approach.  We propose, our approach to restoration of floodplain processes shall improve local hydrology and vegetation structure and have a profound effect on microclimate providing a buffering affect to shocks to the system. 

 

While measures of ecological resilience vary and are currently not well quantified, we posit that well-functioning alluvial floodplains that have access to the full extent of the alluvial aquifer and the lateral floodplain represent some of the most stable aquatic habitats across the Columbia Basin.  Generally, our approach toward stream restoration has been to restore natural processes and to supplement project sites with appropriate materials (ex. increased wood) and forms (ex. increased sinuosity) that will accelerate the habitat functions inherent in the site.  Stream restoration efforts that aim to increase variation (within historic ranges) of channel forms, groundwater dynamics and floodplain surface features will likely provide long lived benefits to alluvial rivers (like Meacham Creek). 

 

The natural diversity of alluvial floodplains spans thermal regimes (Poole et al. 2008), aquatic invertebrates (Stanford et al. 2000) and fish communities (Baxter et al. 2007).  Continuous (annual) turnover of the alluvium and resultant channels in these alluvial floodplains maintains a dynamic connection to deep alluvial aquifers that moderate water temperature – a primary control on aquatic life.  Therefore, well-functioning alluvial floodplains are likely to be locally rich zones of habitat through a changing climate because they have adaptive capacities (to provide a diversity of water temperatures) suited to several life history requirements of Pacific Salmon and other native fish species.  

 

Specific to climate change, we have implemented projects in Meacham Creek that have increased the diversity and number of subsurface flow paths across floodplain.  One result of these actions is that the local residence time of water moving through the site will decrease, raising the local water table and, in turn, contributing to spring channels and other floodplain water features.  We anticipate that the habitat improvements achieved over long time scales, in Meacham Creek, buffer both physical and biological processes.  Likely changes in climate and precipitation will have direct effects on the physical processes in Meacham Creek.  Restoration of floodplain processes shall be duplicated throughout the Umatilla Subbasin.

 

The work discussed above is informed by a sustained research effort by CTUIR over the past 15 years focused on better understanding the patterns and processes of stream temperatures on the Umatilla River, Oregon (Johnson et al. 2004, O’Daniel 2005, Jones et al. 2007, Jones et al. 2008 and Poole et al. 2008).  Within the past year, the CTUIR RM&E project # 2007-252-00 and Montana State University, has expanded this work to model the expected future changes in water temperature in both hyporheic and bedrock reaches under climate change (IPCC) scenarios.  Specifically, we will model adjacent reaches, both floodplain and canyons, under IPCC scenarios, A2, high emissions, A1b, moderate emissions and B1, low emissions.  Individual parameters (ex. stream side shade) will be evaluated in a heat budget forward modeled to test assumptions about key physical processes (role of hyporheic exchange in water temperature moderation).  Results from this research effort will be directly used to conceive, design and implement habitat restoration projects throughout the Umatilla River watershed.  Examples of techniques that have been adopted from past research efforts in this basin include, water and temperature pulse monitoring through shallow wells (Johnson et al. 2004), extensive surface monitoring of water to infer sub-surface flowpaths (O’Daniel et al. 2011) and modeling sub-surface flowpaths to predict transient storage (Poole et al. 2008).