The CTUIR Priority Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project cooperates with other groups to acquire easements and property to secure permanent protection for core anadromous fish habitat in CTUIR’s aboriginal area. The project has been successful, permanently protecting 5000 acres. The proponents adequately describe their relationships to other projects but do not indicate the relative contributions of their project-specific activities to the collective restoration efforts in the targeted basins.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans. Because of the importance of the proposal as a guiding document for the project, we encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to reflect these additions, but the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

1. Project evaluation and adjustment. Provide a description of the formal process for reviewing, evaluating, and adjusting the program broadly.

2. Restoration sites. Provide a summary (map, table) of the sites conserved up to this point and those in process, some basic biophysical characteristics of the properties, and the target species for the sites.

3. Application of monitoring data. Indicate how quickly data and analyses are received from the monitoring projects and, as well, how the analyses/results influence the process used for future purchases and easements.

4. Outcomes for Objective 1. Explain how the intended annual outcomes for Objective 1 were determined.

5. Benefits for fish and wildlife. Meet the 2013 Geographic Review qualification by providing “additional detail regarding CTUIR monitoring and how acquired parcels will be accounted for within the context of the regional framework for habitat status and trend monitoring.” Presumably this would include a landscape level analysis of the contribution of these acquisitions to the overall habitat quality available for fish and wildlife.

6. 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, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project 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

The project has an overarching goal of securing permanent protection for core anadromous habitats in CTUIR’s aboriginal areas, and the goal is supported by a set of objectives. Objective 1 is clear and quantitative, but the subsequent objectives basically describe tasks required to achieve Objectives 1. While the proponents define the scope of the proposed efforts, objectives 2-8 are not really objectives. Many are methods and should be placed in the Methods section. In addition, most objectives are not in a SMART format, although the intentions are clear.

While the proposal provides quantitative and time bound outcomes for Objective 1, the remaining seven objectives are primarily implementation actions necessary to accomplish Objective 1 in a way that is technically sound. Further, the proposal does not explain how the quantitative outcomes in Objective 1 were developed from subbasin and recovery plans. The proponents need to explain how the intended annual outcomes were determined and should document this in the revised proposal.

Q2: Methods

The proponents emphasize the urgency of land acquisition and easements. The Priority Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project works closely with CTUIR’s established Land Acquisition Program to coordinate the acquisition of property and ensure consistency with CTUIR land and resource management goals. The proponents have developed thorough and effective methods for acquisitions and easements. In addition, other projects and BPA provide thorough ongoing review. To streamline property evaluations, CTUIR is developing an online ArcGIS application to better assess the potential benefits of a land acquisition prospect. Finally, the ISRP commends the proponents for expanding their partners and opportunities, including exploring the use of FEMA funds in recently flooded areas to acquire lands and remove infrastructure.

The Priority Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project coordinates with other projects within the CTUIR, as well as with the Umbrella and Programmatic projects in the Grande Ronde, Tucannon, and John Day River basins, to acquire and protect habitats for fish and wildlife. The project integrates the First Foods Policy into the landscape evaluation, prioritization, and acquisition process. While the project states that it collaborates with the Umbrella and Programmatic projects in these basins, the proposal does not mention the approaches used with those projects, such as using the Atlases, which have received favorable review from the ISRP.

The list of habitat project evaluation and prioritization criteria in Table 3 is informative. However, it does not provide special weighting to protect high quality intact habitat as opposed to degraded habitat that would be valuable for restoration. Given the high value of functional habitat, the project should consider expanding the criteria to protect ecologically healthy intact habitat.

The ISAB previously recommended land acquisition programs in the upper Columbia Basin to consider cost effectiveness in their ranking system (ISAB 2018-1). It is not apparent that the CTUIR criteria include any measure of cost effectiveness. We encourage the project to consider including some measure of cost-effectiveness in their ranking process.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal does not address either monitoring or project evaluation and adjustment (e.g., adaptive management process), but instead reviews the prioritization scheme for acquisitions. It is not clear if the project has a process for reviewing and evaluating their success in meeting program objectives, and whether the project has a decision process for modifying the direction or activities of the project if objectives are not being met.

The ISRP notes that monitoring the acquired parcels and easements is the responsibility of other projects, which are listed in Table 4. However, it is not clear how quickly the proponents receive analyses from these projects concerning the monitoring results, and how these analyses/results affect the process used for future purchases/easements. The ISRP assumes the review and cooperation from CTUIR and BPA supports the project evaluation and adjustment process, but a summary of the strategy should be provided.

The proposal briefly mentions climate change and uncertain market values as potential confounding factors. It does not discuss any of the components of climate change and how they will factor those into project priorities and actions. The proponents should provide a more thorough description of how potential confounding factors are considered in their prioritization process, especially climate change and related factors.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project has permanently protected 5,000 acres since 2015, which is impressive, with 2,500 more acres being actively considered for protection. However, while the ISRP appreciated the concise nature of the proposal, it does not include any detail on where those properties are located, which species benefited, and so forth. The ISRP made a similar request in prior reviews, which the proponents responded to with an explanation for why it is not realistic for them to tie monitoring to target species. Rather than a complicated monitoring plan, some basic information is needed on the properties already protected, both to better understand the project and to communicate effectively about its benefits. An example summary could include a map of the sites protected and a table of the site names, attributes of the land (e.g., area, priority, specific features), the type of conservation mechanism (easement, fee title), and the benefits (e.g., species benefited, connectivity to other habitats, ecosystem services, human values). There are a number of existing frameworks (Google “land conservation metrics”) that could be used as a template for such a summary.

There are inherent benefits to fish and wildlife by acquiring critical properties and having conservation easements. However, the proponents have not quantified how previous purchases/easements have improved habitat for fish and wildlife populations. This may be an issue of having and analyzing the monitoring data, and it needs to be addressed in future annual reports, work plans, and proposals. While the proposal lists the completed acquisitions for the five basins, the majority of which are in the Grande Ronde and Tucannon basins, it does not summarize the anticipated contribution of these acquisitions in terms of fish and wildlife or landscape level analysis of the relative benefits. The 2013 Geographic Review included a qualification for the CTUIR to provide “additional detail regarding CTUIR monitoring and how acquired parcels will be accounted for within the context of the regional framework for habitat status and trend monitoring.” The project still needs to provide a landscape level analysis of the contribution of these acquisitions to the overall habitat quality available for fish and wildlife.

In response to previous ISRP comments, the proponents note that identification of willing sellers is accomplished either through monitoring the market or by “prospecting” via reaching out to owners in priority river reaches and watersheds. The latter has the potential to elevate the expectations of the owners by exposing the high priority conservation status of the property, potentially in the absence of strong and timely motivation to sell. Similarly, a comprehensive ranked list of priority conservation targets can artificially elevate land values by creating the appearance of increased demand. Nevertheless, the ISRP would appreciate general descriptions of properties and easements being sought in order to better understand the restoration potential of properties being considered.