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.

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.