Completion of responses to the four major ISRP qualifications is appreciated and will be an important step in making this project more strategic and in providing a higher chance of achieving substantial, on-the-ground results to benefit target fish species. Developing a more strategic framework for restoration will help to ensure that work occurs on the most important locations and if not possible at those locations, due to land owner issues, that alternate sites are guided by an overall prioritization scheme. Given the large land area involved and the limited ability to treat every "problem site," this approach will provide a template that ensures the most effective use of limited resources.

The sponsors will be starting a new process for prioritizing projects within each watershed. They will work with local and regional experts from federal, state, local agencies as well as local landowners and the public in this prioritization process. Guidance from BPA staff and the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board will help inform this process. This is a good approach; will a board be created with a regular meeting schedule to carry out this process? Moreover, because this project performs work in multiple watersheds a little more information on how the prioritization process will work is needed. For example, will watersheds be prioritized first and once that has been done will projects within the highest rated watersheds be ranked and worked on? Or will prospective projects from all the watersheds in the region be simultaneously prioritized and work started on the highest rated ones regardless of watershed? And lastly, the District clearly wishes to include landowner concerns into this new prioritization process. Will that concern be met by the inclusion of local landowners and the public into the prioritization team or will some other approach be used?

In the past, the project has provided explicit quantification of its deliverables. The District states that this was not easily done for the current proposal because the new prioritization process that will identify upcoming work has not taken place. Instead the submitted budget was based on funding the District had received in the past for a suite of actions, e.g. riparian planting, maintaining planted vegetation, noxious weed control, protection of riparian buffers, manure management, developing water sources for livestock, sediment and erosion control and planting perennial cover. Given the circumstances this was a reasonable approach. It is clear however, that before new projects can be initiated budget and contract revisions will likely have to occur to account for possible differences in project emphasis.

It appears that this project would unfold over time as projects are prioritized with help of other “experts” and cooperation of private landowners. The proponents have successfully gained support of private landowners, and this is key to restoration in this region. But specific targeted actions need to be identified in order to effectively use available funding. Targeted actions and objectives should be developed at the time of contracting.

Implementation monitoring can be used to gauge the degree to which project objectives are met. In order for this to be effective, it is important that the project objectives are stated in measurable terms and have an expected time for results to be achieved. Such an effort can be done with relatively low tech methods and/or using volunteers to implement part selected components. The Conservation District has purchased a turbidity meter and deployed water and air temperature monitoring equipment to collect environmental data. We urge the sponsors to work with their monitoring partners to ensure that their larger projects are being examined. Before and after photos should also be taken whenever possible.

The primary focus of this monitoring would be to ensure that project objectives are met. It is fine that different entities will be conducting M&E (actually this is preferred). The proponent and those conducting M&E should share regularly information on activities.

The coordination of proposed riparian and floodplain project work with in channel work is adequately addressed, the proponents assert that their new prioritization process will provide the strategic planning to coordinate such work.

ISRP comments in 2006 identified the need for geomorphic assessment to better understand broader scales processes. It is not clear if this assessment will occur in the new proposal?

Information regarding passive restoration and protection is adequately addressed. The District defined what it meant by passive restoration in its response giving minimum tillage as an example.

Evaluation of Results

This is a long standing project that has made substantial accomplishments on the ground. Unfortunately, the lack of a strategic approach for identifying highest priority watersheds and treatments within each, is limiting the long term success of the project. Additionally, the lack of basic implementation and effectiveness monitoring to address physical and vegetation response to treatments, limits the ability to make adjustments to treatment type and location needed to improve project and treatment effectiveness over time.

The sponsors state that they will complete prioritization of projects, by watershed, in 2014 (expected in July 2014 but no later than Jan 2014 [2015?]). The sponsors plan to work with local and regional experts from federal, state, local agencies, landowners and the public to prioritize their restoration projects. More information is needed about this process: * Will a board with a regular meeting schedule carry out this process? * How will the prioritization process work? * How will landowner concerns be included into the prioritization process? Also, there is no discussion about prioritizing watersheds before prioritizing individual projects within watersheds. It would seem most efficient to prioritize watersheds and then do project prioritization only for the highest priority watersheds likely to be treated in the life of the current agreement. It is noted that an interdisciplinary team (including fisheries, soils, geomorphology, and range management disciplines) will be formed to complete the task. Use of such a team is a sound approach. The sponsors also state that BPA wants to see documentation of high quality outcomes of actions instead of quantification of direct fisheries benefits. Improved definition of expected outcomes is discussed in item 2, while monitoring/evaluation of project/treatment success is discussed in item 4.

There appears to be some confusion on development of objective statements as suggested by the ISRP. The original comments were offered in hopes of seeing objective statements of desired project/treatment outcomes (future conditions following restoration treatment) that can be observed/measured. For example, in addition to a statement that 10 miles of stream will be fenced (a deliverable accomplishment), it was hoped that the objective statement would be something like: "Within 2 years following treatment, fully exclude livestock use of the riparian area and achieve at least 80% survival of planted vegetation. Within 5 years, achieve reestablishment of historical, riparian vegetation communities on at least 80% of the fenced area." Such statements of quantitative objectives provide descriptions of desired, post restoration conditions that can readily be measured and an expected time frame for completion. They also establish a useful foundation for project monitoring. Completion of these objective statements is requested for individual projects. Additional detail on this topic is also included in the Programmatic Issues discussion.

The sponsors state that prioritization of fish passage needs will be part of the overall prioritization process and that such an effort is difficult due to changing flow conditions and dewatering of some stream channels. It is suggested that this assessment focus on documented, man-made barriers (culverts, diversion dams etc.) that occur on streams known to support spawning and/or rearing of target fish species. Re-connecting potential habitat is a high priority issue and should be done iteratively at subbasin and watershed scales. Given the stated lack of irrigation in the area, it is suggested that the assessment focus on road-stream crossings and on any known water diversion structures. It is not clear if a full listing of these structures is in hand to allow for such a prioritization effort. If not, one should be developed. The primary goal of a completed fish passage assessment is to facilitate the reconnection of the highest quality habitat especially to, and within, the highest priority watersheds. A schedule for completing an assessment of fish passage, particularly in high priority watersheds, is requested.

As noted in the original ISRP comments "This issue was raised previously by the ISRP, and there does not seem to have been much progress towards accomplishment." The basic outline of a program and a timeline for its completion is requested. Many of the comments raised for the Asotin Creek Enhancement and restoration project also apply to this project, especially near term development of an implementation and compliance monitoring program using relatively simple approaches and perhaps using students or interested public to assist in its implementation. This program would determine if project objectives (which describe expected, project-specific outcomes, as described in item 2. above) are met. The objectives would provide the foundation for such monitoring. It is felt that monitoring/evaluation activities could be implemented on selected projects or groups of projects, at a very reasonable cost and would provide valuable insights regarding project results and the effectiveness of treatment types. This information would likely lead to improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of restoration treatments and increases in overall program benefits.

A response is requested for the following items:

1) Additional detail on the process for prioritizing watersheds and individual projects, completed plans from this process, or a timeline for the completion of this planning effort.

The proposed habitat protection and restoration project demonstrates its significance to the region. The program identified its key deficiency in the past: implementing projects opportunistically rather than based on a technical evaluation and prioritization. The current program proposes to evaluate and prioritize actions using the Atlas Process. Prioritization is needed before specific deliverables are identified. Although there is success in demonstration of landowner conservation practices, the direct fish benefits in the targeted creeks is unclear.

2) The proposal needs to be revised to include quantitative objectives with associated time frames for their completion.

3) There needs to be additional information and discussion about a strategic approach to dealing with connectivity, that is, upstream and downstream fish passage in the mainstem and tributary proposal components.

4) Description of a timeline for implementation of a meaningful monitoring and evaluation program. This issue was raised previously by the ISRP, and there does not seem to have been much progress towards accomplishment. The basic outline of a program and a timeline for its completion is requested. Many of the comments raised for the Asotin Creek Enhancement and restoration project also apply to this project, especially near term development of an implementation and compliance monitoring program using relatively simple approaches and perhaps using students or interested public to assist in its implementation.

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

The proposal demonstrates its significance to ESA fishes and regional programs, including NMFS RPAs. The program facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve habitat conditions for fishes. Itoffers a solid program of work towards implementation of "whole watershed" restoration which includes both upland and instream treatments and acknowledges and supports passive restoration. As stated, it “helps to bridge the gap between agency representatives and landowners on sensitive resource issues.” This does appear to be an important role and needed for long term, sustainable restoration. Some questions remain:

1) How does this project coordinate the proposed riparian and floodplain work with that may occur in the stream channel? If not well-coordinated, damage to treated areas could occur given disturbance by heavy equipment needed for instream work or channel re-meandering.

2) Similar questions as were raised for the companion project, such as the need for multiple disciplines, the reach scale may be too limited for processes like erosion/sedimentation, and water temperature concerns. ISRP comments in 2006 identified the need for geomorphic assessment to better understand broader scale processes. The proposal notes that this is to be included at a stream reach scale in the Atlas Process, but there is no mention of it occurring at a watershed scale.

3) There is a good deal of discussion regarding passive restoration and protection, yet there is little discussion of any activities to accomplish this. Perhaps fencing and upslope erosion treatments are considered passive. If so, this should be clarified.

Three general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics that can be monitored. The objectives should also link back to the limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. Additionally, LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives.

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

As with the companion proposal, it appears that there has been a substantial amount of work and stakeholder/community buy-in achieved in the past several years. This is a major accomplishment of the project. It is stated that there has been "documented improvement in the health of watersheds in Asotin County" but there is no information or detail provided to summarize any of these positive changes. Including this type of information on positive results seems particularly relevant since the watershed has been a "model Watershed" since 1994.

The history of accomplishments was not clearly described in the proposal. 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. Then it should describe what was accomplished in terms of fencing and tree planting, and how many planted trees survived or died. 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 was accomplished. In the linked report, 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 action effectiveness, but rather it is documenting accomplishments, which 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 notes that previous habitat actions were largely opportunistic and not based on strategic assessment and prioritization of actions. This is unfortunate because habitat actions are expensive and opportunistic actions may not have the desired outcome if for example upstream condition impact actions downstream. In the proposal’s adaptive management section, the sponsors recognize that there is a need for a strategic assessment. It is noted that the Atlas Process for prioritizing projects will be utilized. Completion of a comprehensive review and prioritization of future work is critical and should be completed immediately. It also appears that the proposed prioritization process is reach-based and will not be able to effectively assess major processes like erosion/sedimentation and water temperature that operate on a broader scale and should provide a context to inform the reach scale considerations.

The proposal attempts to address comments from the previous ISRP review. It is noted that 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 responded 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 IMW. Nevertheless, the sponsor should document what was implemented during the project period, for example trees planted, trees that survived, and miles of stream protected. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not.

Evaluation of Results

The lack of a consistent and comprehensive program of effectiveness monitoring and evaluation appears to severely limit the sponsor’s ability to identify and discuss the actual results of past treatment. The application of some medium to low resolution monitoring such as thermographs or stream shading using a solar pathfinder for water temperature, before-after photo network, and before-after upland erosion monitoring using available models would be useful. There are excellent photographs provided in annual reports of completed work, but few are before-after sequences. Additionally, there does not appear to have been any past effort to relate treatments in upslope and riparian/floodplain areas to instream habitat conditions.

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

The only emerging limiting factor mentioned was noxious weeds. Major issues are not discussed including climate change, water use/availability as related to agricultural use, upland forest management issues, and especially roads and fires and their relation to erosion and instream sediment. Also, another factor, and one that is perhaps a key limiting factor, is the extent to which the lack of cooperation by private property owners might prevent successful implementation of 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

Objectives for the proposal should be quantitative and thus link to deliverable activities that have occurred and that are proposed. Methods or rationale to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective. For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel?

The proposal generally describes the type of actions that it will implement as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that 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.

In the budget section, it was not clear for what the majority of funds would be used. What is the item “other”?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The lack of a monitoring program was previously identified by the ISRP, and there appears to have been little progress made in this area. No RM&E protocols are listed. The sponsors stated that monitoring has been a challenge due to the fact that this is a habitat restoration project not an RME project. However, there appears to be a number of options to employ relatively low cost/low effort implementation and compliance monitoring techniques to describe outcomes of work completed and to relate those to stated objectives.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 10:03:56 AM.

ISRP has requested a response for Proposal GEOREV-2002-050-00

[Project #2002-050-00:  Riparian Buffers on Couse and Tenmile Creeks in Asotin County]

ISRP First Round Rating:  Response Requested
Comment:

A response is requested for the following items:

1) Additional detail on the process for prioritizing watersheds and individual projects, completed plans from this process, or a timeline for the completion of this planning effort.

The proposed habitat protection and restoration project demonstrates its significance to the region. The program identified its key deficiency in the past: implementing projects opportunistically rather than based on a technical evaluation and prioritization. The current program proposes to evaluate and prioritize actions using the Atlas Process. Prioritization is needed before specific deliverables are identified. Although there is success in demonstration of landowner conservation practices, the direct fish benefits in the targeted creeks is unclear.

Response:  The Asotin County Conservation District will be starting the process for prioritizing projects for each watershed no later than January 2014.  We expect the process to be completed by July 2014.  BPA continues to evaluate our funding based on the District’s ability to articulate the priority of actions to be implemented, addressed to purposes resulting from the ongoing evolution of the F&W program.  BPA in cooperation with the District as its implementation partner, will coordinate and monitor efforts to leverage existing scientific data and physical information for the development of a strategic, prioritized restoration implementation strategy.  

 

Much of this information development and strategic implementation guidance is already evident in the assistance and direction provided by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB).  See, e.g., the 3-Year Work Plan table of prioritized actions and commitments at: http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/3yrWrkPlanFeb2012.pdf . 

We are a small District, with limited staff resources, and it is best we leverage and not recreate plan elements.  We continue to work with the SRSRB staff to build on this existing information, and with their assistance, move towards a more demonstrably strategic and deliberate selection and implementation strategy.  Together, we will be working with local scientists and regional experts that will include at least one fish biologist, geomorphologist, soil scientist and range specialist as well as other experts that are willing to participate in the planning efforts.  Our intent is to have technical experts that have knowledge and familiarity of focal species utilization within these particular smaller Asotin County stream systems (e.g., Alpowa, etc.); and can address concerns and provide recommendations throughout the entire watershed.  Requests will be made to federal, state and local agencies, local landowners and the public to participate in the process. 

 

Up to this point project actions have been evaluated for and identified as those that biologically provide a benefit for fish.  With the continued assistance of the SRSRB and BPA, our methods to strategically prioritize and direct funding to projects that will have the biggest benefit to fish will improve and solidify.  We acknowledge the need to adjust our efforts to better strategically  identify prioritized locations and restoration activities required to recover and enhance aquatic habitats for at-risk fish species.  But implementation of restoration actions, especially on private land, is often constrained by other factors; and the majority of Asotin County is in private ownership.  Our goals will continue to be tempered by the ongoing responsibility of the District to encompass individual landowner concerns and resource issues into evaluation and implementation of restoration priorities, by managing aquatic resource and habitat needs on a ridge-top to ridge-top basis and perspective.

In the context of Program maturation, we (BPA & the Sponsor) are building the hierarchy of responsibility to answer the question the ISRP poses here: How do you know if your project helped fish?  Currently, the attributes of that responsibility continue to evolve, comprised of a mix of habitat contract actions overlaid by system-wide M&E requirements allocated to projects of programmatic scale.

In our circumstances, BPA has explicitly asked that sponsor efforts not be directed to the quantification of direct fish benefits; only to the delivery of high-quality outcomes of actions implemented to improve habitat characteristics and function.  In that context, as we build a framework for prioritization, and as we learn going forward, our efforts will be focused on these attributes:

1)      Ability to implement suites of actions that will more effectively identify & address priority Limiting Factors

2)      Strategic vs. Opportunistic Implementation

3)      Accountability for Conservation Investment

4)      Better integration of existing planning documents, and incorporation of the latest monitoring data, into decisions at the local implementation level.

5)      Develop ranking & prioritization matrix (biological integrity and feasibility)

6)      Set (reestablish) baseline for future adaptive management 

7)      Communication:  Stakeholder Integration & Partnership Leveraging

 

2) The proposal needs to be revised to include quantitative objectives with associated time frames for their completion.

Response:   Please see the additional discussion of objectives/quantification, at #4 (below).

 

3) There needs to be additional information and discussion about a strategic approach to dealing with connectivity, that is, upstream and downstream fish passage in the mainstem and tributary proposal components.

Response:   The connectivity of the types of projects proposed (and currently implemented), and the relationship to passage constraints  into areas where the work is being completed, is expected to be one attribute of the outcome of a strategic planning process.  For a system like Couse Creek, the restoration reach includes the lower 4 miles of the drainage. The remainder of the drainage is a protection reach.  Project efforts have focused on localized conditions with the intention of better water quality downstream where fish habitat is.  Water quality and reduction in fine sediments have been improving.  But we are counting on closer coordination and synthesis with the broader state-driven planning guidance to better integrate project-connectivity to passage constraints throughout the system. [see, e.g., Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan: SE Washington (2011), Chapter 6, at p. 196: http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/library/recovery-plan/]

The issue of connectivity in some of these small tributary streams is an extreme challenge to address.  Physical passage barriers are being addressed where feasible, and practically effective (e.g., the elimination of rocked-ford crossings that impair passage at low flow periods).  However, the water table varies drastically among stream segments in these smaller systems; in some cases there is really nothing that can be done in certain areas since the water-flow is seasonal runoff, unimpaired by surface water diversions or groundwater consumption.  The ability to have proper fish passage during migration is key to allowing access to critical spawning and rearing habitat upstream.  This will be a topic explored during the strategic planning to ensure we are addressing connectivity, where feasible, when selecting and implementing projects.  

 

4) Description of a timeline for implementation of a meaningful monitoring and evaluation program. This issue was raised previously by the ISRP, and there does not seem to have been much progress towards accomplishment. The basic outline of a program and a timeline for its completion is requested. Many of the comments raised for the Asotin Creek Enhancement and restoration project also apply to this project, especially near term development of an implementation and compliance monitoring program using relatively simple approaches and perhaps using students or interested public to assist in its implementation.

Response:  Sediment reduction and improved water temperatures in these smaller Asotin County streams are a principal implementation accomplishment since project inception.  Changes observed have been on a near-parallel trajectory with those reported for the Tucannon, and as we discussed during the project tours with the Science Panel members.  However, during contracting, BPA has moved support away from the small-scale temperature and sediment monitoring previously incorporated into our SOW, because we were identified as a project that will not be continuing to conduct project-level action effectiveness monitoring (AEM) using BPA’s Programmatic AEM program approach.  We are continuing the process of transitioning responsibility for the sites and equipment to the local, regionalized monitoring and evaluation efforts conducted at a programmatic scale.

 

Given this direction to adjust contract actions to be consistent with the BPA Programmatic Action Effectiveness Monitoring program [reviewed by the ISRP (ISRP 2013-2) and recommended for implementation by the Council on June 17, 2013], it is not the responsibility of this project to provide data or document protocols for other work or projects for RM&E, as part of this proposal.  Nonetheless, although this project is not tasked with implementing AEM, it does align with the Programmatic AEM approach.  Project monitoring will be carried out by other projects focused on collecting data to support the Programmatic AEM approach.  The known RM&E projects associated with this project are referenced in the “Relationship to Other Projects” section in the proposal form, or were referenced as part of the programmatic processes previously provided to the ISRP and ISAB by BPA for review of the Programmatic AEM approach.  However, this project will continue to work with BPA and Council staff to identity whether restoration actions proposed under this project may be candidates for use in the AEM program.   In accordance with the ISRP and Council recommendation, BPA will provide the ISRP updates on the ISEMP (IMWs fish and habitat relationships), CHaMP (Status and Trends) and the AEM program (with updated list of actions and related projects that contribute to the AEM program). 

 

 

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

The proposal demonstrates its significance to ESA fishes and regional programs, including NMFS RPAs. The program facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve habitat conditions for fishes. It offers a solid program of work towards implementation of "whole watershed" restoration which includes both upland and instream treatments and acknowledges and supports passive restoration. As stated, it “helps to bridge the gap between agency representatives and landowners on sensitive resource issues.” This does appear to be an important role and needed for long term, sustainable restoration. Some questions remain:

1) How does this project coordinate the proposed riparian and floodplain work with that may occur in the stream channel? If not well-coordinated, damage to treated areas could occur given disturbance by heavy equipment needed for instream work or channel re-meandering.

Response:  Our goal is the strategic planning will determine what type of work should be completed in these streams included in this proposal.  In the past, the majority of the streams have not ranked high for instream work or channel re-meandering projects.  It was determined that riparian enhancement and upland projects were a higher priority and a better use of public funds to improve fish habitat.  The strategic planning that will be completed will provide the opportunity to re-evaluate that determination and identify any instream projects that may be a priority.  If site specific projects are identified that would include instream work, a specific timeline would be developed to ensure the implementation work was completed in the appropriate order. 

2) Similar questions as were raised for the companion project, such as the need for multiple disciplines, the reach scale may be too limited for processes like erosion/sedimentation, and water temperature concerns. ISRP comments in 2006 identified the need for geomorphic assessment to better understand broader scale processes. The proposal notes that this is to be included at a stream reach scale in the Atlas Process, but there is no mention of it occurring at a watershed scale.

Response:  The strategic planning that will take place will be conducted for each “major” stream in the county, but will be rolled up into two major plans: one for streams that are in the Asotin Creek Watershed (which is the other proposal submitted by ACCD) and all other watersheds in Asotin County.  These plans will build on the existing assessments and prioritized limiting factors already included in the recovery work plan for the Snake River region, but be more detailed in their project selection and implementation strategies.  They will be utilized to make implementation decisions at the individual site level, stream level and watershed scale.  

 

3) There is a good deal of discussion regarding passive restoration and protection, yet there is little discussion of any activities to accomplish this. Perhaps fencing and upslope erosion treatments are considered passive. If so, this should be clarified.

Response In general, the District considers work that does not make direct/immediate change to the stream to be a passive restoration and protection projects.  While these activities have a major impact on stream conditions and limiting factors, the results typically are not immediate and in some cases can take years to be measurable.  Upland projects, such as minimum tillage is a great example of a “passive” protection project that has proven very beneficial to streams but does not show an immediate change in the stream.    

Three general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics that can be monitored. The objectives should also link back to the limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. Additionally, LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives.

Response:  Please see the additional discussion of objectives/quantification, at #4 (below).   

With the limits of funding and available expertise, the District selected objectives and deliverables to address during the project period based on the objectives sourced from existing planning and implementation guidance, the feasibility for implementation, and a rough evaluation of what would provide the greatest biological benefit for the limited funds available.  While the deliverables identified in the proposal may have an indirect impact on the LWD and bed scour in the stream, it is not the primary focus of the objectives that were identified. Actions selected are intended to address the range of limiting factors identified for these stream systems, in the Snake River Recovery Plan (2011), including fine sediment, low flow, limited habitat quality, habitat quantity, channel confinement, riparian function, water temperature, and obstructions – but of necessity, not all of them.

 

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

As with the companion proposal, it appears that there has been a substantial amount of work and stakeholder/community buy-in achieved in the past several years. This is a major accomplishment of the project. It is stated that there has been "documented improvement in the health of watersheds in Asotin County" but there is no information or detail provided to summarize any of these positive changes. Including this type of information on positive results seems particularly relevant since the watershed has been a "model Watershed" since 1994.

The history of accomplishments was not clearly described in the proposal. 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. Then it should describe what was accomplished in terms of fencing and tree planting, and how many planted trees survived or died. 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 was accomplished. In the linked report, 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 action effectiveness, but rather it is documenting accomplishments, which 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 notes that previous habitat actions were largely opportunistic and not based on strategic assessment and prioritization of actions. This is unfortunate because habitat actions are expensive and opportunistic actions may not have the desired outcome if for example upstream condition impact actions downstream. In the proposal’s adaptive management section, the sponsors recognize that there is a need for a strategic assessment. It is noted that the Atlas Process for prioritizing projects will be utilized. Completion of a comprehensive review and prioritization of future work is critical and should be completed immediately. It also appears that the proposed prioritization process is reach-based and will not be able to effectively assess major processes like erosion/sedimentation and water temperature that operate on a broader scale and should provide a context to inform the reach scale considerations.

The proposal attempts to address comments from the previous ISRP review. It is noted that 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 responded 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 IMW. Nevertheless, the sponsor should document what was implemented during the project period, for example trees planted, trees that survived, and miles of stream protected. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not.

Response While past projects have been opportunistic in nature, they must address resource concerns to be considered for funding by the District.  These project have had a positive impact on natural resources throughout the watershed and while a formal prioritization has not taken place in the past, resource concerns and natural resource benefits have always been a factor when projects have been funded.  There have been proposed projects denied by the District when the board has determined there not to be a resource benefit or the cost to benefit ratio was not justified. 

Since it is a habitat project and focuses on implementation of projects this is an issue the District has struggled with in this proposal.  Since there was no baseline data/monitoring work done prior to 2002 when the original proposal for the Couse/Tenmile project was funded it is difficult to provide quantifiable results and improvements in limiting factors.  The District has been reporting to BPA in the form of annual reports of the implementation practices that have been completed but even that has not reflected the overall work that has been accomplished since it was only taking a snapshot of the BPA funded work.  The District is working with BPA to reformat the annual reports to better reflect the overall accomplishments annually but this is a work in progress. 

Evaluation of Results

The lack of a consistent and comprehensive program of effectiveness monitoring and evaluation appears to severely limit the sponsor’s ability to identify and discuss the actual results of past treatment. The application of some medium to low resolution monitoring such as thermographs or stream shading using a solar pathfinder for water temperature, before-after photo network, and before-after upland erosion monitoring using available models would be useful. There are excellent photographs provided in annual reports of completed work, but few are before-after sequences. Additionally, there does not appear to have been any past effort to relate treatments in upslope and riparian/floodplain areas to instream habitat conditions.

This has been a challenge the District has struggled with not only for BPA funded project but all projects that have been implemented.  The focus and priority for funding sources has been to continue addressing resource concerns and limiting factors rather than to monitor past implementation efforts for effectiveness.  While everyone seems to agree it is needed it has not been a high priority to direct funds to these activities.  The District has also been investigating options to improved before-during-after photo documentation and long term storage.  Pictures are taken for each project and photos are included in the annual report for projects that were completed each year.  The District has discussed changing the format of the annual report to be able to include a section that would provide photos of past projects and the impacts/changes/growth there has been.  Since the District installs hundreds of practices each year there will need to be a method in place to determine which projects focus on in future years for effectiveness monitoring.  It is not feasible to revisit every practice implemented annual during the life span of the project with the budget and staffing the District currently has available.  In addition, the District is considering the option of aerial photos to provide better photo documentation of the changes and improvements on a stream or watershed scale.  During the contracting phase these issues and options will have to be addressed with BPA.   

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

The only emerging limiting factor mentioned was noxious weeds. Major issues are not discussed including climate change, water use/availability as related to agricultural use, upland forest management issues, and especially roads and fires and their relation to erosion and instream sediment. Also, another factor, and one that is perhaps a key limiting factor, is the extent to which the lack of cooperation by private property owners might prevent successful implementation of 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.

 

The District is trying to focus on emerging limiting factors that can be addressed within the subbasin even though there are many factors that have major impacts on fish population but are outside our control.  Noxious weed and invasive species control has become a major concern due to the negative impact they can have throughout the watershed, especially the riparian corridors. 

There is very minimal irrigation in Asotin County and the District has had minimal funds available to address irrigation efficiencies.  The District has received funds from the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board in the past to install fish screens on irrigation pumps.  Approximately 15 screens were installed throughout Asotin County with those grant funds.  They were designed to meet WDFW requirements.    

The District was instrumental in the development of the Asotin County Community Wildfire Protection Plan in 2007.  This plan focuses on forest areas and issues include forest health and management as well have fire reduction and prevention.  Currently the District has grant funds available to landowners to complete fuel reduction projects in forested areas of the county.  These projects have secondary benefits to improve forest health which impacts water quality in mountain streams.   

The District is a non-regulatory agency that is available to work with any and all landowners within the District boundaries.  However, we are limited to voluntary participation by landowners.  While most landowner are willing to work with the District to address resource concerns and implement projects, there are some that do not want any involvement with the District or other agencies and do not support the work we do to improve and conserve natural resources.  We agree that unwilling landowners is a major constraint but all we can do is educate them on the issues and encourage and provide opportunities for them to implement projects.  The District has the ability to refer a concern to a regulatory agency but this would only be considered in the most extreme situation due to the potential negative perception on the District.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Objectives for the proposal should be quantitative and thus link to deliverable activities that have occurred and that are proposed. Methods or rationale to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective. For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel?

The proposal generally describes the type of actions that it will implement as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that 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.

In the budget section, it was not clear for what the majority of funds would be used. What is the item “other”? 

Response:  The link between objectives and deliverables:  The relationship between contract actions (characterized as a deliverable in the design and structure of the proposal template) and the desired outcomes stated as an objective, is extrapolated from the source documents that provide restoration assessment and implementation guidance for the Snake River sub-region.  The relationships are the same as those drawn in both the assessment of existing habitat conditions, and in the evaluation of conceptual restoration strategies.  See the table of “General Projects for Priority Restoration & Protection Stream Reaches (WRIA 32) for a listing of project types/strategies and goals or conceptual outcomes, for the stream systems encompassed in this proposal; at p. 4:  http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/3yrWrkPlanFeb2012.pdf   

See also, the listed Habitat Work Schedule, at: http://hws.ekosystem.us/PRun.aspx?p=Page_e7e0ad79-17d5-489b-9ed8-cb76f1f7c879&m=1&text=asotin&textid=1003&textmode=Contact&page=1

Objectives and methods may have been described without the requisite scientific rigor; but the actions proposed for funding are those recommended to improve habitat conditions and address the most pressing limiting factors in these smaller stream systems [See, Provisional 3 Year Work Plan (SRSRB) 2012, “General Project Categories for Priority Restoration Reaches” (above link) at p.1].  In other words, to the best of this sponsor’s ability, we have articulated objectives as guidance for the work proposed and the outcomes to be produced as deliverables, from the most germane, relevant and accessible sub-regional assessment, action evaluation and implementation planning guidance documents available.

(B)  Quantification:  Perhaps there was a better means to capture and display in the proposal form, the metrics and quantified deliverable accomplishments as reported in Pisces (and as proposed for this project going forward); but it was not evident to this sponsor at the time of proposal submittal.  Discrete actions proposed as milestone deliverables, and progress towards a Work Element objective quantified as actual accomplishment, are as proposed / reported in Pisces each year.  For example, for the one-year period ending March 31, 2013:

• # of riparian miles treated (planted): 1.0 (proposed) -1.05 (actual)
• # of acres of riparian non-wetland habitat planted: 15.0 (proposed) -17.5 (actual)
• # of acres of riparian non-wetland habitat maintained (watered): 49.0 (proposed) -49.0 (actual)
• # of acres of grass-field erosion buffer: 12.0 (proposed) -0.0 (actual); no participating landowners
• # of acres of riparian non-wetland habitat protected by fencing: 15.0 (proposed)-16.0 (actual); Average buffer width: 35.0 (proposed) – 55.0 (actual)
• # of alternate stock-water sources installed in the riparian zone: 3.0 (proposed)-6.0 (actual). 

 

(C)  Budget:  The budget item “Other” is the Proposal Template category for the substantive work proposed, and as incorporated into contracting.  The majority of the contract funds are for the on-the-ground actions (and related environmental compliance costs) described within the body of the proposal narrative; and are used to cost-share and leverage additional funding support for those actions from other sources.  Accomplishment reporting includes performance metrics for all actions in the budget category of “other,” as quantified and recorded in Pisces. 

 

Some examples from the Apr 2012 – Mar 2013 contract period, include:

• Vegetative plantings (trees, shrubs, forbs, fabric, irrigation, protective measures) totaled $16,500, but were budgeted as a BPA (Program) cost of $7,500;  
• $87,000 of off-channel stock watering investment installed at $60,000 Program cost;
• 3 sediment-trap basins constructed for $7,000, but at a BPA cost of $2,500
• Incentives were paid to keep 2000 acres, otherwise due to roll-out of the program, in CRP take-out (increased to 2400 acres currently) at an avg. cost/year of $65,000.

In the current period, “other” also includes elimination of a passage barrier (at low water) on Tenmile Creek.  Replacing the existing rocked-ford crossing with a rail car bridge is budgeted at $60,000, but to be installed at a cost to BPA of $40,000. 

 

For the current proposal, the District struggled with estimating the quantity for each deliverable since the strategic planning has yet to take place. This is the reason why number of acres, stream miles, etc were not originally identified in the proposal. The budget for each deliverable was identified based on historical funding provided by BPA for each activity type. Below is the estimated quantitative results for each deliverable but it is possible the planning will show funds should be directed in a different manner and should be take into consideration when compared to actual implementation during the projects life.

 

Deliverables for 2014-2018
Establish Riparian Vegetation (DELV-1)	50,000 trees/shrubs planted
Maintain Vegetation - Tree Watering (DELV-2)	5,000 trees/shrubs
Noxious Weed and Invasive Species Removal (DELV-3)	1,800 acres
Protect Riparian Buffers (DELV-4)	40,000 feet of stream bank
Manure Management (DELV-5)	4 facilities
Develop water sources for livestock (DELV-6)	40 developments
Residue Managment Program (DELV-7)	1400 acres
Install Erosion Control Structures (DELV-8)	25 structures
Plant perennial/conservation cover (DELV-9)	500 acres

 

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The lack of a monitoring program was previously identified by the ISRP, and there appears to have been little progress made in this area. No RM&E protocols are listed. The sponsors stated that monitoring has been a challenge due to the fact that this is a habitat restoration project not an RME project. However, there appears to be a number of options to employ relatively low cost/low effort implementation and compliance monitoring techniques to describe outcomes of work completed and to relate those to stated objectives.

The District has already taken a proactive position regarding monitoring by purchasing a turbidity meter and deployed water and air temperature monitors (tidbits) utilizing state funds.  While the cost may be low, the District is 100% grant funded and only work that is identified in those grants is eligible for reimbursement.  This reflects our best “low-cost” effort.

Previously, using BPA funds, we were expected to ensure data is collected, stored, and reported in a manner that met BPA standards, which included metadata reporting requirements.  BPA staff has transitioned data collection and reporting activities from this contract to subregional monitoring programs.   

Compliance “monitoring” has been a consistent practice of the District, and will continue to be written into our performance agreements.  No landowner/cooperator receives cost-share from the District until a technician has inspected project actions to ensure they meet implementation standards and specifications.  Every private lands action implemented has a specific expected  lifespan or duration; and the landowner/cooperator is responsible for maintaining it, at their own cost, throughout the lifetime of the installation.