< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

199604601 - Walla Walla River Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Budgets: FY07: $321,373 | FY08: $337,443 | FY09: $354,315

Short description: The proposed project is a continued effort by the CTUIR to protect and restore habitat critical to the recovery of salmonid fish populations in the Walla Walla River Basin.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $337,710 | FY08: $337,710 | FY09: $337,710

Comment: ISRP fundable qualified: programmatic habitat m&e issue, see decision memo discussion. Sponsor should address ISRP comment next time they report to Bonneville (copy to Council staff).

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)


The sponsors provided a reasonable response to some of the ISRP’s comments but not to others. The sponsors adequately addressed ISRP comments related to objectives, reach prioritization, landowner permission to conduct projects, and information transfer. The sponsors provided little more information on project effectiveness than they did in the original proposal, basically citing monitoring results from a single project (which was insightful and indicated progress toward success) rather than providing a comprehensive quantitative synthesis across all projects. Because of the lack of presentation of comprehensive, quantitative results it is difficult to assess the success of this project. The ISRP remains concerned about the lack of fish monitoring. The sponsors apparently do not feel that measuring parameters related to fish production at the project level is necessary. Their rationale is that changes in salmonid abundance for an individual project could result from any number of factors not related to habitat restoration activities and argue that effectiveness is best determined at the subbasin or tributary scale. This view is somewhat perplexing because the sponsors mentioned in the section in the original proposal entitled “Parameters currently being monitored and analyzed over time” that monitoring fish populations was a standard part of their project assessments. One way of assessing impacts of extraneous factors at the site level is to employ unrestored reference reaches to serve as a comparison with restored reaches. The sponsors mentioned the use of reference reaches several times in the proposal, but they did not describe the reference reaches or even clearly indicate if they would actually make use of them. It would be relatively simple to add some monitoring of fish response, and to take a more active part in the development of habitat effectiveness evaluation in the basin. The sponsors could develop a cost-effective program with help from a statistical team in creating a design. Qualification: More effort should be placed on monitoring fish response to habitat changes. Monitoring all projects may not be necessary, but the sponsors do need some plan at an appropriate watershed/subbasin scale to determine the effectiveness of the projects. To assess effectiveness, the sponsors should try to identify reference reaches to compare with restored reaches.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable, but at a reduced level

Review group: OSPIT - Plateau

Recommended budgets: FY07: $40,000 | FY08: $40,000 | FY09: $40,000

Comment: See comments on 200002600.

State/province recommendation: Washington

Review group: Washington list

Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)

Comment: See Washington guidance