1. Clearly defined objectives and outcome 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) have developed a program of conservation and restoration on 15,306 acres in the Isqúulktpe Creek watershed of the Umatilla River basin. The overarching goals and activities of the project are consistent with those found in the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. The Summary describes 17 aspirational or directional objectives for each of the three major habitat types (riparian, grassland, upland forest) being restored and enhanced, but none are explicit quantifiable objectives with explicit timelines for outcomes. The text indicates a new Management Plan will be produced in 2017 or 2018. This offers an excellent opportunity to develop a streamlined number of quantifiable objectives with explicit timelines for expected outcomes, monitoring and evaluation, and an adaptive management process. 

2. Sound scientific principles and method 

The Summary Report provides information on management actions taken since 2003, but using tables to summarize the extent of project activities would greatly improve communication of this information. The discussion of outcomes reflects consideration of scientific principles, but these are not explicitly stated. CTUIR has developed a vision of ecosystem services and the First Foods of the Umatilla Tribe and integrated it into the Management Plan for the Rainwater Project. The Isqúulktpe Project would be strengthened substantially by revising its management plan based on the Umatilla River Vision and related quantifiable objectives and timelines.

Project activities and some of the methods used to achieve project goals in each of its three habitat types were summarized. An important issue for the project is the re-establishment of native vegetation, particularly, perennial native grasses. Invasive non-native annual grasses are currently the predominate species in the project’s grasslands. The project performed a pilot study to test how effective three herbicide treatments might be on eradicating medusahead rye, a non-native, annual grass species. Results were not encouraging, and a new treatment is being planned. Re-establishing native plant species in a variety of habitats seems to be a regional problem. Restoration has proven to be difficult and ascertaining best practices may be beyond what a single project can accomplish. Clearly, university, federal, state, and other entities are engaged in this type of work. The ISRP believes it makes sense for these groups and for BPA’s wildlife mitigation programs to start formal collaborative efforts where multiple treatments could be evaluated simultaneously across the region. Standard experimental designs, using replication, and appropriate statistical procedures would help advance our understanding of the best approaches for re-establishing native plant species. The Council could play an important role in facilitating the creation of such partnerships. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The Project monitors water temperatures, redd counts, bird communities, selected plant communities, and non-native invasive plants. M&E in upland areas appears to be focused on the distribution, condition, composition, and cover of native plant species. Monitoring the effects of project actions on fish is being conducted by another project, the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project. The monitoring program has documented a doubling of the number of summer steelhead redds since the late 1990s, but there is no information on fish abundances. While salmonids are monitored, the Project does not monitor or assess the native fish community other than salmonids. Assessment of fish biodiversity on the property would strengthen the ecological understanding of conservation and restoration actions and serve as critical information for designing future actions. Monitoring data provide some suggestion that stream temperature in lower Isqúulktpe Creek have declined by 1-2°C following cessation of livestock grazing in the late 1990s. Use of reference systems for comparison and more rigorous statistical analysis would provide a better basis to assess this conclusion. The Project could develop explicit monitoring of the First Foods or indices of the First Foods and report them as outcomes and measures of both ecological and cultural success. This innovative approach could be a model for other groups. 

The CTUIR has developed a substantial M&E program. The Project has the opportunity to expand the monitoring program even further by working with local universities to encourage the use of their site by graduate students or field classes. Given the location between Washington State University, Eastern Oregon University, Whitman, Gonzaga, and University of Idaho, the project could present programs at the universities to attract useful research and monitoring projects. They could partner with citizen science programs in the region, such as Ducks Unlimited or Trout Unlimited. The managers know their sites very well and can use their education and outreach efforts to create ongoing partnerships to provide critical evaluations of the status and trends of critical objectives, effectiveness of their management actions, and unforeseen challenges. 

Another important management tool developed by the project is its weed management plan. Locations of nuisance species are identified and mapped using GIS coordinates. Eradication efforts have been guided by this information. Most impressive is the eradication of the extensive infestation of Himalayan Blackberries along the banks and floodplain areas of Isqúulktpe Creek. 

Information obtained from the project’s monitoring efforts is being used to modify how restoration is taking place. One example of this was the recognition of the value of aspen stands on the project’s lands. It was noted, that over-browsing by cattle or ungulates was inhibiting the regeneration of this habitat. Fencing was used to protect several stands and subsequent monitoring showed significant improvement in the growth and survival of aspen suckers.

Figures and tables at the end of the Summary Report documenting trends in resource responses (e.g. aspen sucker stems) were valuable and related to the text. What was not clear was the relationship between grazing / grazing intensity and the responses. Grazing leases were terminated, but grazing by trespass cattle and feral horses continued. The proponent’s approach is passive, and responses of vegetation will likely be slow. Results from the “baseline” monitoring work could be useful in establishing timelines and objectives for habitat outcomes. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

Maximum summer stream temperatures in lower Isqúulktpe Creek have declined by 1-2°C following cessation of livestock grazing in the late 1990s and numbers of steelhead redds have doubled. Counts of riparian-obligate birds and upland birds have not changed since the project was initiated. Attempts to protect aspen have not increased the abundance or distribution of aspen, though browse effects were lower in exclosures. Efforts to control medusahead have not resulted in changes in cover of this invasive non-native plant. Cover of Himalayan blackberry has decreased substantially in riparian areas as a result of control measures. The discussion of outcomes clearly identifies challenges and responses to invasive plants, but additional information on outreach and education would be informative. 

One of the key actions carried out by the project was to lease a range unit from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Cattle grazing on this unit, which covers most of the project’s lands, was stopped. Feral horses were also impacting the project’s grasslands. Over 400 were removed from the Umatilla Indian Reservation and a feral horse management plan was developed. Excluding cattle has increased riparian vegetation and may have contributed to a reduction in stream sediments. Even with this prohibition, however, trespass cattle were still observed impacting riparian vegetation. The project recently installed three miles of fencing in an effort to prevent future incursions of trespass cattle. Monitoring of riparian vegetation growth and the use of remote cameras will be used in the future to determine if the new fence has reduced the presence of trespass cattle. 

The project does not have a formal adaptive management plan.

This project is especially significant in that this watershed contains habitats of considerable significance for several species, including summer steelhead. Results from M&E efforts in the watershed should be reported, including: 1. a summary of vegetative trends; 2. more detail on survey methods for monitoring fish habitat to determine how sensitive to habitat change these surveys may be; 3. more detail on spawner or redd surveys of the fish spawning in Iskuulpa Creek; 4. more explanation of coordination with other projects doing M&E is needed. For example, relationship to the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project 1990-005-01, could be expanded, e.g., explain the M&E plan and how benefits of activities accomplished by the Iskuulpa project will be quantified, and how the results of M & E are used to adapt to new, innovative habitat maintenance and restoration procedures. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The justification, significance and relationship to other restoration projects in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin are appropriate for this project. The proposal asks for ongoing support to continue the implementation of a restoration effort being implemented at a watershed scale. This project is especially significant in that this watershed contains habitats of considerable significance for several species, including summer steelhead. However, the proposal did not present the results of their M&E efforts in the watershed. The justification for the project would be much stronger if this was provided. 2. Project History and Results This project was initiated in 1994, and considerable progress has been made since then both in terms of extending protection to additional lands through acquisition or lease and enhancing the quality of habitat on lands previously secured. Although the project sponsors do not have the budget to conduct a comprehensive assessment of project results, they have used the monitoring resources at their disposal to implement an effective program to evaluate the results of their restoration efforts in the watershed (see comments below related to the monitoring elements of the project). 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods In general the objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for this project. Many of the activities for which the project sponsors are seeking funding involve the continuation of activities that are intended to maintain and improve project elements previously implemented. Continuing these activities is critical to the long-term success of the project. Maintaining fences, ensuring that noxious weeds are controlled and controlling recreational activities within the watershed are all necessary actions to ensure continued improvement of watershed conditions. The sponsors are encouraged to continue investigating new techniques to accomplish, reduce, or eliminate maintenance and operations tasks over the long term. The review team applauds the use of integrated pest management strategies and the use of local sources of plant materials for restoration activities. 4. M&E The M&E effort is very commendable, given the relatively low level of funding dedicated to this activity. Most monitoring of riparian and upland vegetation work is provided by fixed photopoints. This technique is appropriate for providing a qualitative indication of plant response. There also appears to be some quantitative data available on the vegetation from the ecological reconnaissance plots. A summary of vegetative trends should be provided in a response. The monitoring of fish habitat is based on results of surveys conducted in 1994 and 2008. Not enough detail was provided on survey methods to determine how sensitive to habitat change these surveys may be. More detail on survey methods and results should be provided in a response. More frequent re-surveys would be valuable to provide a better indication of how rapidly stream habitat responds to the application of a given restoration action. As one of the objectives of the watershed restoration project is the reduction of fine sediment and water temperature, it was surprising that some monitoring of these parameters has not been included. Determining temporal changes in temperatures and sediment levels can require significant effort, which may be beyond the monitoring resources for this project, but would be very valuable additions to the monitoring plan for the Iskuulpa Creek watershed. Spawner or redd surveys on the creek were mentioned only very briefly in the section on relationships with other projects. More detail on what these surveys have found regarding the fish spawning in Iskuulpa Creek should be provided in a response. More explanation of coordination with other projects doing M&E is needed. For example, relationship to the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project 1990-005-01, could be expanded; e.g., explain the M&E plan and how benefits of activities accomplished by the Iskuulpa project will be quantified, and how the results of M & E are used to adapt to new, innovative habitat maintenance and restoration procedures.