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

This is a long-term, whole watershed "ridgetop to ridgetop" restoration project that has employed use of integrated restoration treatments (upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments). The Asotin County Conservation District manages the project and works with federal, state, and local agencies and landowners to identify and prioritize habitat restoration activities. It is an important regional program and facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. There has been a substantial amount of coordination and the completion of a wide array of important restoration work. It is stated that there have been large advances in habitat quantity and quality realized since beginning of work in the 1980s. Unfortunately there is no summary describing these changes, where they have occurred and what treatments, or combination of treatments appear to have been responsible for them.

The project complements the Asotin Subbasin Plan, Snake River Regional Recovery Plan, WRIA 35 Watershed Plan, and the Asotin Creek Model Watershed effort. A stated in the proposal, the past approach has been site-scale and opportunistic and this proposal will employ the "Atlas Process" to develop a more strategic approach for restoration. As described, this process will synthesize data and GIS layers and use the TAC to identify priority locations (BSRs) and treatments. There are a number of issues that need to be considered: previous ISRP comments on geomorphic analysis and monitoring do not appear to have been fully addressed; the process does not appear to provide sufficient focus on past monitoring and lessons learned over the last 15+ years of implementation; as a whole watershed restoration project including a substantial upland component, it seems that the make-up of the TAC should be interdisciplinary and not limited to biologists; the description of how priorities will be set is vague and the role of the Stakeholder TAC (local experts) seems limited to only making recommendations on project feasibility.

Looking at various reports and documents, via hotlinks in the proposal, it appears that there is a good deal of relevant information that was not included in the main body of the current proposal. One example is a wide range of public outreach and education activities. These have been ongoing for several years and likely have contributed to good landowner understanding and buy in to the restoration efforts and a higher level of understanding by residents, especially children and students, on the importance of healthy watersheds to fish and to humans. There are other examples including additional monitoring and a variety of lessons learned that were not presented or specifically referenced in the proposal. A video called “Ridgetop to Ridgetop” has been developed which is a very high quality product. The video should be very useful in attracting interest and support from landowners and the general public. This support is essential because habitat restoration often requires support of private landowners. It would be useful to get this video on the NPPC website. The video and presentation to the ISRP provide confidence that the program has made good progress, especially in regard to gaining support of private landowners.

Four general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics, that can be monitored, and a stated time frame for the expected outcomes. In other words, based on past experience, how much can be accomplished during the next project period? The objectives should also be linked to the four limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

It appears that there have been substantial accomplishments in this watershed and that they have addressed both valley bottom and upslope issues. There is very little discussion that quantitatively summarizes the extent and results of past restoration treatments. Similarly, there was very limited discussion regarding the many lessons that have likely been learned over the long history of restoration work. A positive aspect of the proposal is the recognition that a more strategic approach is needed for more effective restoration results. Unfortunately, the current approach appears limited to the instream and floodplain components of the project and does not consider upslope elements.

Ideally, the proposal should have stated its initial quantitative objectives for each of its previous actions, such as miles of stream fenced and numbers of trees planted, and then describe what was accomplished and the associated results, for example reduced water temperature or healthier riparian vegetation. Information about accomplishments was provided in linked implementation reports, but a summary of this key information should have been in the proposal so that reviewers and the Council can readily see what has been accomplished. In the linked reports, it was not clear whether the reported activities achieved the initial objectives, in part because quantitative objectives probably were not developed for the initial projects. Proposals such as this should estimate what they hope to accomplish and then evaluate what was accomplished. This is not monitoring project effectiveness, rather it is documenting accomplishments, which is a task that should be easy to do. Presentation of this information would facilitate a roll-up of habitat accomplishments across all watersheds in the Columbia basin.

The proposal attempted to address comments from the previous ISRP review. The program consulted with a BPA geomorphologist, but it is not clear to what extent the prioritization process will account for geomorphic processes, as suggested by the ISRP. The ISRP also asked for monitoring and assessment, but the sponsors have not addressed this issue other than to respond that the project is a habitat project, not RM&E. Some fish and habitat monitoring is being conducted by other entities such as WDFW and the State of Washington’s IMW. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not.

Evaluation of Results

There appears to have been a good deal of productive work, coordination, and the completion of a wide array of activities over the life of this project. Unfortunately, there is a limited discussion of actual results other than the statement "to date, large advances in habitat quantity and quality have been realized." A specific example of where a description of results has not been provided is the channel, re-meander project that was completed in 2005 where nearly a mile of stream was treated on lower George Creek. The project was completed more than 7 years ago, and yet there is little discussion of the results of this very intensive, restoration treatment. Additional examples include reductions in sediment input from the use of no-till practices, revegetation of riparian areas and fencing and planting. There have clearly been important results from these treatments, but no quantitative measures or estimates are provided.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

There is a cursory discussion of emerging limiting factors that only addresses non-native plant species. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of climate change and possible effects on stream temperature, stream flow, or potential changes in riparian vegetation. Perhaps a key limiting factor, though not emerging, is private property ownership that might prevent priority actions. The proposal highlights cooperation with landowners, but it did not identify the number of priority actions that may be constrained by unwilling landowners. How will this compromise or adversely impact adjacent habitat restoration activities?Nevertheless, the ISRP was impressed with the informative presentation and video that documented significant progress in gaining support by private landowner to protect and restore habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The proposal generally describes the type of actions that will be implemented as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that completed actions can be compared with what was proposed. For example, how many acres, or stream miles, of riparian vegetation is proposed to be planted during the project period? Each deliverable should have a quantitative objective so that progress against the objectives can be documented. Plus, it would be good to know how much might be accomplished with the proposed budget. This type of information is needed for habitat restoration efforts throughout the Columbia basin so that the Council and planners can readily see what is being proposed and what is being accomplished. No details are provided on when this work will be accomplished or evaluated.

Methods or rationales to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective(s). For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Overall, this proposal is weak regarding comprehensive monitoring for a long-term, whole watershed restoration project. It is important that a coherent monitoring plan be developed for the watershed restoration program and is one that integrates the range of activities by all players. The monitoring plan should be strategic and build on experience gained in past efforts. It should also incorporate ongoing efforts such as those for the IMW being done by the State of Washington. Monitoring should include a base level of implementation and compliance monitoring for all SWCD projects.

There is, and has been, a wide variety of monitoring activities over the long life of the project. Results of the evaluation of these efforts are not provided or discussed. A summary of past monitoring activities and findings is overdue for this project.

As stated above, this is an IMW for the State of Washington, and there is monitoring for fish response to restoration ongoing. There is no discussion of results or discussion as to any linkage with other monitoring. Also, there is no mention of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM or how this will be incorporated into the current plans for monitoring. These efforts may serve the needs for effectiveness monitoring if they are integrated with the ongoing habitat restoration effort.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The ISRP was impressed by the sponsor’s presentation and the video that documented the program’s success in gaining support by private landowners for habitat restoration activities. Communication with private landowners and gaining their support is a key achievement of this project. The ISRP is encouraged that this effort will lead to other willing participants in habitat restoration.

The ISRP's qualifications should be addressed in contracting, and the ISRP would like to see a progress report in 2014. Qualifications include:

 

Further discussion of the strategic planning and prioritization process and a timeline for completion of this planning/prioritization effort is needed. It is critical that the program utilize a strategic process to prioritize future projects. This is a very important component for ensuring effective use of funds and increasing the likelihood of a positive ecological response. Actions should not be undertaken unless they have been vetted through the evaluation and prioritization process.

Project objectives and proposed "deliverables" should be quantitative so that accomplishments can be better documented. For example, how many miles will be fenced and how many trees will be planted?

Basic accomplishments should be quantified and documented in a report so that the Council knows what has been accomplished with the past funding. This should also include a summary of past monitoring results and major lessons learned.

A coherent and comprehensive implementation and effectiveness monitoring plan is needed. After 15+ years of project implementation, this is important. Such monitoring is critical to directly assess the effectiveness or benefits derived from the project's habitat restoration activities. The sponsors acknowledge this and suggest that ongoing monitoring in the Asotin Basin, conducted by other entities, could be used to fill this need. More information is needed on what monitoring approaches will be used and how they will be tied to informing the location and/or design of future restoration actions. There are many "low to moderate" intensity techniques for monitoring project implementation and compliance that would provide useful information on the results of various treatment methods.

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

This is a long-term, whole watershed "ridgetop to ridgetop" restoration project that has employed use of integrated restoration treatments (upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments). The Asotin County Conservation District manages the project and works with federal, state, and local agencies and landowners to identify and prioritize habitat restoration activities. It is an important regional program and facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. There has been a substantial amount of coordination and the completion of a wide array of important restoration work. It is stated that there have been large advances in habitat quantity and quality realized since beginning of work in the 1980s. Unfortunately there is no summary describing these changes, where they have occurred and what treatments, or combination of treatments appear to have been responsible for them.

The project complements the Asotin Subbasin Plan, Snake River Regional Recovery Plan, WRIA 35 Watershed Plan, and the Asotin Creek Model Watershed effort. A stated in the proposal, the past approach has been site-scale and opportunistic and this proposal will employ the "Atlas Process" to develop a more strategic approach for restoration. As described, this process will synthesize data and GIS layers and use the TAC to identify priority locations (BSRs) and treatments. There are a number of issues that need to be considered: previous ISRP comments on geomorphic analysis and monitoring do not appear to have been fully addressed; the process does not appear to provide sufficient focus on past monitoring and lessons learned over the last 15+ years of implementation; as a whole watershed restoration project including a substantial upland component, it seems that the make-up of the TAC should be interdisciplinary and not limited to biologists; the description of how priorities will be set is vague and the role of the Stakeholder TAC (local experts) seems limited to only making recommendations on project feasibility.

Looking at various reports and documents, via hotlinks in the proposal, it appears that there is a good deal of relevant information that was not included in the main body of the current proposal. One example is a wide range of public outreach and education activities. These have been ongoing for several years and likely have contributed to good landowner understanding and buy in to the restoration efforts and a higher level of understanding by residents, especially children and students, on the importance of healthy watersheds to fish and to humans. There are other examples including additional monitoring and a variety of lessons learned that were not presented or specifically referenced in the proposal. A video called “Ridgetop to Ridgetop” has been developed which is a very high quality product. The video should be very useful in attracting interest and support from landowners and the general public. This support is essential because habitat restoration often requires support of private landowners. It would be useful to get this video on the NPPC website. The video and presentation to the ISRP provide confidence that the program has made good progress, especially in regard to gaining support of private landowners.

Four general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics, that can be monitored, and a stated time frame for the expected outcomes. In other words, based on past experience, how much can be accomplished during the next project period? The objectives should also be linked to the four limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

It appears that there have been substantial accomplishments in this watershed and that they have addressed both valley bottom and upslope issues. There is very little discussion that quantitatively summarizes the extent and results of past restoration treatments. Similarly, there was very limited discussion regarding the many lessons that have likely been learned over the long history of restoration work. A positive aspect of the proposal is the recognition that a more strategic approach is needed for more effective restoration results. Unfortunately, the current approach appears limited to the instream and floodplain components of the project and does not consider upslope elements.

Ideally, the proposal should have stated its initial quantitative objectives for each of its previous actions, such as miles of stream fenced and numbers of trees planted, and then describe what was accomplished and the associated results, for example reduced water temperature or healthier riparian vegetation. Information about accomplishments was provided in linked implementation reports, but a summary of this key information should have been in the proposal so that reviewers and the Council can readily see what has been accomplished. In the linked reports, it was not clear whether the reported activities achieved the initial objectives, in part because quantitative objectives probably were not developed for the initial projects. Proposals such as this should estimate what they hope to accomplish and then evaluate what was accomplished. This is not monitoring project effectiveness, rather it is documenting accomplishments, which is a task that should be easy to do. Presentation of this information would facilitate a roll-up of habitat accomplishments across all watersheds in the Columbia basin.

The proposal attempted to address comments from the previous ISRP review. The program consulted with a BPA geomorphologist, but it is not clear to what extent the prioritization process will account for geomorphic processes, as suggested by the ISRP. The ISRP also asked for monitoring and assessment, but the sponsors have not addressed this issue other than to respond that the project is a habitat project, not RM&E. Some fish and habitat monitoring is being conducted by other entities such as WDFW and the State of Washington’s IMW. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not.

Evaluation of Results

There appears to have been a good deal of productive work, coordination, and the completion of a wide array of activities over the life of this project. Unfortunately, there is a limited discussion of actual results other than the statement "to date, large advances in habitat quantity and quality have been realized." A specific example of where a description of results has not been provided is the channel, re-meander project that was completed in 2005 where nearly a mile of stream was treated on lower George Creek. The project was completed more than 7 years ago, and yet there is little discussion of the results of this very intensive, restoration treatment. Additional examples include reductions in sediment input from the use of no-till practices, revegetation of riparian areas and fencing and planting. There have clearly been important results from these treatments, but no quantitative measures or estimates are provided.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

There is a cursory discussion of emerging limiting factors that only addresses non-native plant species. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of climate change and possible effects on stream temperature, stream flow, or potential changes in riparian vegetation. Perhaps a key limiting factor, though not emerging, is private property ownership that might prevent priority actions. The proposal highlights cooperation with landowners, but it did not identify the number of priority actions that may be constrained by unwilling landowners. How will this compromise or adversely impact adjacent habitat restoration activities?Nevertheless, the ISRP was impressed with the informative presentation and video that documented significant progress in gaining support by private landowner to protect and restore habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The proposal generally describes the type of actions that will be implemented as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that completed actions can be compared with what was proposed. For example, how many acres, or stream miles, of riparian vegetation is proposed to be planted during the project period? Each deliverable should have a quantitative objective so that progress against the objectives can be documented. Plus, it would be good to know how much might be accomplished with the proposed budget. This type of information is needed for habitat restoration efforts throughout the Columbia basin so that the Council and planners can readily see what is being proposed and what is being accomplished. No details are provided on when this work will be accomplished or evaluated.

Methods or rationales to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective(s). For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Overall, this proposal is weak regarding comprehensive monitoring for a long-term, whole watershed restoration project. It is important that a coherent monitoring plan be developed for the watershed restoration program and is one that integrates the range of activities by all players. The monitoring plan should be strategic and build on experience gained in past efforts. It should also incorporate ongoing efforts such as those for the IMW being done by the State of Washington. Monitoring should include a base level of implementation and compliance monitoring for all SWCD projects.

There is, and has been, a wide variety of monitoring activities over the long life of the project. Results of the evaluation of these efforts are not provided or discussed. A summary of past monitoring activities and findings is overdue for this project.

As stated above, this is an IMW for the State of Washington, and there is monitoring for fish response to restoration ongoing. There is no discussion of results or discussion as to any linkage with other monitoring. Also, there is no mention of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM or how this will be incorporated into the current plans for monitoring. These efforts may serve the needs for effectiveness monitoring if they are integrated with the ongoing habitat restoration effort.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The ISRP was impressed by the sponsor’s presentation and the video that documented the program’s success in gaining support by private landowners for habitat restoration activities. Communication with private landowners and gaining their support is a key achievement of this project. The ISRP is encouraged that this effort will lead to other willing participants in habitat restoration.

The ISRP's qualifications should be addressed in contracting, and the ISRP would like to see a progress report in 2014. Qualifications include:

 

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:42:06 PM.