The proponents present a project aimed at removing barriers and providing diversion screens that is generally well organized. The proposal describes the goals, objectives, and means to achieve proposed actions. The proponents (CTUIR) provide an overarching framework for this and other projects in the region tied to First Foods and Functional Touchstones. The ISRP found this to be an understandable and beneficial framework for this and related projects – we encourage its use more broadly.

The proponents have established productive partnerships with multiple groups and have successfully corrected or eliminated numerous fish passage barriers using agreed-upon approaches among cooperators. Fourteen additional projects are scheduled for the next funding period. These projects will take place in the Walla Walla, Umatilla, John Day, Grande Ronde and Tucannon subbasins. All are designed to improve access and survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmonids and resident bull trout. In future annual reports and work plans, the proponents need to provide information to address the following Conditions:

1. Explanation of objectives. Table 3 summarizes the project’s objectives (listed as actions and measures) along with a general response expected (i.e., “uplift”). The relationship between the actions and measures, however, is not obvious and appear to propose the same thing stated differently. For example, the first (action) objective is to remove 15 barriers while the second (measure) objective is to restore passage to 150 miles. These seem to just state the same thing with differing metrics (barriers v. miles). Further, the timeline lists 6 major projects. Presumedly, the 15 barrier removal projects are broken into these 6 projects, but that was not clear. The ISRP recommends clarifying these related forms of the objectives during the work plan, annual report, and contracting stages.
2. Details on procedures. Specific details on implementation objectives and methods used to correct fish passage and diversion screening problems are not described. While no formal response is needed, the ISRP recommends attaching a link or an appendix that briefly describes the standard operating procedures, best practices, or formal guidance and methods used for specific kinds of projects (implementation objectives) in the final work plan or next annual report. The proponents indicate that they follow state passage requirements and projects are selected from OR and WA priority lists, but the specific procedures and criteria are not provided.
3. 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 Walla Walla Sub-Basin Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation Project (200003900) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. 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.
4. Database availability. The proponents appear to have a useful database, but it was not clear what part was or was not publicly available. The ISRP recommends providing a description of the database and its accessibility in the next annual report.
5. Climate change and prioritization. The proponents provided a list of climate change issues likely to affect the Walla Walla Subbasin and to recovery of imperiled species in this system. The CTUIR fish habitat project (199604601) also included a strong presentation on climate change, which indicates considerable thinking on this topic and how it will affect the subbasin. What was not clear, however, is how their climate change analysis is used to select specific project actions. Specifically, a high priority action under present or past conditions might be quite different from those under likely climate change scenarios. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue to refine their projections, coordinate with other projects, and adjust project activities accordingly.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal aims to continue a suite of actions directed at providing passage in several subbasins through diversion dam removal or retrofit, screens, ditch consolidation, and culvert removal/improvement. The ISRP notes that the current project has taken a rather circuitous path to its present form (199601100 was combined with 200739600 and then split out again in the current project). The proponents clearly state the major impediments to the projects’ outcomes, such as water availability and habitat connectivity.

Historically, the project(s) has completed a good number of actions such as diversion dam removal or fish ladder retrofits, screen installations, ditch consolidations, and culvert removals/improvements.

Regarding the proposed objectives, Table 3 frames actions in terms of Goals, Quantitative Actions, Quantitative Measures, and Biological Function Uplift (i.e., response). The connection between action and measure appears to restate the same thing with differing metrics (see Condition 1 above). The proponents state that 10 passage impediments will be targeted based on OR and WA priority (candidate) lists and species benefiting (Table 4). A public process is described for determining final selection although specifics are not presented (see Condition 2 above).

Like most of the Walla Walla or CTUIR proposals, the overall, large-scale objectives are the primary focus, and they do a commendable job presenting and discussing these. They have a well-stated project goal which they reframe into a useful biological goal, i.e., "restore longitudinal connectivity, fish passage and habitat quantity.” Objectives of the project are to remove 15 passage barriers. Projects are systematically identified through plans, basin and subbasin plans and so on. There is a process they go through to do this, but for an outsider it is not clear which projects can be selected or the basis for the selection. In short, it is not clear how much of project selection is driven by opportunity, strategic need, or other criteria. Further details on the project selection process should be provided in a subsequent annual report.

Q2: Methods

Implementation methods are generally described, including specific project selection (see above). These are appropriate at a high level. Based on past implementation success, it appears that the proponents have a firm handle on how to undertake such projects and measure their implementation. While no formal response is needed, the ISRP recommends attaching a link or an appendix that covers some of the standard operating procedures, best practices, or formal guidance and methods used for the specific kinds of projects in the final work plan or next annual report (See Condition 2 above).

Federal (NMFS and USWFS) and state (WDFW and ODFW) partners participate with project staff to design culvert replacements, bridges, and structures that incorporate current NMFS and state (Oregon and Washington) fish passage standards. Recently, design criteria have also included elements that facilitate Pacific lamprey passage. Compliance and periodic monitoring are used to determine if the restoration actions are performing as expected. Methods being applied to improve passage appear to be sound based on the proponent’s expertise, collaboration with professionals from outside agencies, and upon the adherence to established fish passage criteria.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Biological M&E is provided through associated projects. As an implementation project, implementation is provided through contracting and compliance.

At a high level, improving or providing passage (identified as Quantitative Action and Measures Objectives) is expected to lead to benefits to fish and wildlife (identified as Biological Function Uplift). The realization of the “Uplift,” however, implies a sound M&E to observe and measure. As such, the M&E for implementation of barrier removal and improved access will be conducted within the activities of this project; however, the potential biological effects resulting from the project’s actions will be measured by a consolidated M&E project (200003900 and perhaps others). The ISRP recommends coordinating with the M&E project proponents to link specific activities in that project to what can be used to measure a response to passage improvements (see Condition 3. above)

Adaptive management is described at a general level – annual coordination and policy meetings provide the platform for decision making. Some recent trends indicate the outcome of adaptive thinking, although little detail on process or rationale is provided. For example, there appears to be a shift of focus into tributary or smaller systems. In future proposals, it would be useful to understand why proponents are shifting to tributary/smaller system work. Are these priority places, or is there less opportunity to work on mainstem/bigger system projects (or other rationale)?

Q4: Results — benefits to fish and wildlife

The primary obstacles this project addresses are access for fish and wildlife to water and habitat connectivity. The expected benefits (Biological Function Uplift) to anadromous species and resident bull trout are outlined in various ESA, Vision, and Accord documents.

From 2008 to the present the project has successfully removed or corrected 48 passage barriers and updated 14 irrigation screens and improved anadromous fish access to an estimated 725 miles of stream habitat all within the Ceded Lands of the CTUIR. Additionally, all the project deliverables mentioned in the 2013 Geographic Review, with one exception, have been completed or are in the planning and design stages.

Ultimately, documenting benefits to fish and wildlife requires sound M&E to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation objectives at achieving the predicted biological function uplift. The proponents describe a lengthy list of climate change issues on page 27; however, it is not clear how all the partners in the basin are looking ahead to incorporate climate change into management actions and decisions (see Condition 5 above).