Qualification: Currently, the proposal does not provide enough information to allow a complete scientific evaluation. Overall, this proposal is to provide funding to work with a consulting firm (Stillwater Sciences) to develop an experimental design for evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration activities in five subbasins. Given the importance of this work, the ISRP recommends that it review the proposed experimental design when it is completed.

The proponents of this work propose to develop and publish in the peer-reviewed literature a detailed design for evaluating habitat enhancement across five basins managed by the CTUIR. Evaluating the effectiveness of habitat enhancement, especially for anadromous steelhead and Chinook, but also migratory fish like bull trout, is very challenging because: a) effects of factors outside of the basins (like ocean conditions) interact with any effects of habitat enhancement, and b) fish use habitat across multiple scales, even in freshwater, so response variables must be measured across multiple scales as well.

Overlaid on this is a third challenge, which is that habitat enhancement is combined with flow augmentation and hatchery supplementation in various tributaries, making simple treatment-control comparisons difficult. In many cases, these three main actions are combined, so that simple comparisons are often confounded. For example, effects of habitat enhancement measured in a treatment vs. control stream could be caused by another factor that is also different between the two streams (e.g., one has received supplementation whereas the other has not).

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

The CTUIR is proposing to develop and publish an experimental design and sampling protocol to measure biological results of habitat enhancement actions in a scientifically defensible way. The project is well justified and badly needed in the Umatilla Basin. This project is related to regional intensively monitored watershed (IMW) programs and to MERR, PNAMP, CSMEP, and ISEMP (although it is unclear how it will be integrated with these other programs). It addresses the ISRP’s recommendation for habitat effectiveness monitoring in the Umatilla Basin.

Discussion of the technical background could have been improved if the proponents had presented the conceptual experimental design that they say was completed in 2009. The proponents also say they have summarized RM&E actions in each of the five subbasins on ceded land. It would have been useful, even necessary, to include the summary in the proposal in abbreviated form.

The technical challenge, as described above, will be to develop an experimental design which can:

a) Address the interaction between freshwater habitat (and changes to it by habitat enhancement) and mainstem survival, ocean conditions, and climate change.

b) Address how effects of habitat enhancement can be teased apart from effects of supplementation, flow augmentation, or other factors that affect freshwater survival and growth. It seems that statistical models could be developed across this larger number of basins and tributaries to partition out the effects of these factors, as well as the effects of different basins, and changes through time, perhaps using a “model selection” approach (Burnham and Anderson 2002. Springer).

c) Address what response variables about fish and habitat will be measured at what scale, to test specific hypotheses. For example, hypotheses may range from some at the local scale such as “Growth of juvenile Chinook will be greater in off channel than mainstem habitats” to very broad-scale hypotheses such as “Relative reproductive success of steelhead is greater in tributaries where habitat has been enhanced versus control watersheds without habitat enhancement, after accounting for the effects of density-dependence, ocean conditions, and changes in supplementation.”

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The proponents have completed a conceptual experimental design but did not include it in the proposal.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The project appears to be closely related to other projects on ceded lands and to ODFW’s Umatilla Intensively Monitored Watershed program, but these linkages were not entirely clear.

Emerging limiting factors include overarching effects of climate change, lag times from other projects or disturbances, and effects of supplementation on biological responses. How the experimental design will tease apart these effects from those of habitat enhancement will need to be clearly laid out.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Metrics and methods will need to be made clear in the design. At a finer level than the interacting effects described above, rarely is a habitat response (e.g., side channel development) independent of other habitat changes (e.g., flood plain reconnection). Separating a single response from all other habitat responses, say in a reach, could be difficult. The design will also need to clearly lay out how this will be addressed.

Qualification: Currently, the proposal does not provide enough information to allow a complete scientific evaluation. Overall, this proposal is to provide funding to work with a consulting firm (Stillwater Sciences) to develop an experimental design for evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration activities in five subbasins. Given the importance of this work, the ISRP recommends that it review the proposed experimental design when it is completed. The proponents of this work propose to develop and publish in the peer-reviewed literature a detailed design for evaluating habitat enhancement across five basins managed by the CTUIR. Evaluating the effectiveness of habitat enhancement, especially for anadromous steelhead and Chinook, but also migratory fish like bull trout, is very challenging because: a) effects of factors outside of the basins (like ocean conditions) interact with any effects of habitat enhancement, and b) fish use habitat across multiple scales, even in freshwater, so response variables must be measured across multiple scales as well. Overlaid on this is a third challenge, which is that habitat enhancement is combined with flow augmentation and hatchery supplementation in various tributaries, making simple treatment-control comparisons difficult. In many cases, these three main actions are combined, so that simple comparisons are often confounded. For example, effects of habitat enhancement measured in a treatment vs. control stream could be caused by another factor that is also different between the two streams (e.g., one has received supplementation whereas the other has not). 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The CTUIR is proposing to develop and publish an experimental design and sampling protocol to measure biological results of habitat enhancement actions in a scientifically defensible way. The project is well justified and badly needed in the Umatilla Basin. This project is related to regional intensively monitored watershed (IMW) programs and to MERR, PNAMP, CSMEP, and ISEMP (although it is unclear how it will be integrated with these other programs). It addresses the ISRP’s recommendation for habitat effectiveness monitoring in the Umatilla Basin. Discussion of the technical background could have been improved if the proponents had presented the conceptual experimental design that they say was completed in 2009. The proponents also say they have summarized RM&E actions in each of the five subbasins on ceded land. It would have been useful, even necessary, to include the summary in the proposal in abbreviated form. The technical challenge, as described above, will be to develop an experimental design which can: a) Address the interaction between freshwater habitat (and changes to it by habitat enhancement) and mainstem survival, ocean conditions, and climate change. b) Address how effects of habitat enhancement can be teased apart from effects of supplementation, flow augmentation, or other factors that affect freshwater survival and growth. It seems that statistical models could be developed across this larger number of basins and tributaries to partition out the effects of these factors, as well as the effects of different basins, and changes through time, perhaps using a “model selection” approach (Burnham and Anderson 2002. Springer). c) Address what response variables about fish and habitat will be measured at what scale, to test specific hypotheses. For example, hypotheses may range from some at the local scale such as “Growth of juvenile Chinook will be greater in off channel than mainstem habitats” to very broad-scale hypotheses such as “Relative reproductive success of steelhead is greater in tributaries where habitat has been enhanced versus control watersheds without habitat enhancement, after accounting for the effects of density-dependence, ocean conditions, and changes in supplementation.” 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The proponents have completed a conceptual experimental design but did not include it in the proposal. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The project appears to be closely related to other projects on ceded lands and to ODFW’s Umatilla Intensively Monitored Watershed program, but these linkages were not entirely clear. Emerging limiting factors include overarching effects of climate change, lag times from other projects or disturbances, and effects of supplementation on biological responses. How the experimental design will tease apart these effects from those of habitat enhancement will need to be clearly laid out. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Metrics and methods will need to be made clear in the design. At a finer level than the interacting effects described above, rarely is a habitat response (e.g., side channel development) independent of other habitat changes (e.g., flood plain reconnection). Separating a single response from all other habitat responses, say in a reach, could be difficult. The design will also need to clearly lay out how this will be addressed.