The ISRP commends the proponents for their past success in acquiring and protecting important habitat and water rights in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan subbasins. They have developed a strong selection framework for identifying priority projects by understanding that acquisition opportunity is a key driving factor. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) is a major partner in developing the Biological Strategy of the Upper Columbia River Regional Technical Team (RTT 2019) and the Habitat Action Prioritization process (RTT 2020). The proposal provides a clear explanation of their priorities and processes and identifies the past potential benefits to fish and wildlife that have resulted from their acquisition of land and water resources.

The ISRP recently reviewed the methodology for prioritizing land acquisitions and water transfers as part of the CTCR landscape approach for habitat restoration (ISRP 2020-1). The proposal also addresses aspects of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s Review of Spring Chinook Salmon in the Upper Columbia River (UCR Report) (ISAB 2018-1) and Review of the Upper Columbia United Tribes’ Fish Passage and Reintroduction Phase 1 Report: Investigations Upstream of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (Reintroduction Report) (ISAB 2019-3). This proposal addresses most of the areas where the ISRP requested additional information.

Proponents of Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP 200722400) have proposed that this project (200810400) and Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish (199604000) be subsumed, and the three projects be renamed the Upper Columbia Habitat Implementation Program (UCHIP). The CTCR are proponents of all three projects. If the Council and BPA approve this combination, the ISRP could review the integrated project.

M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Upper Columbia River Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan subbasins. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The ISRP review in 2020 recommended that the proponents should “modify the objectives into quantitative, time-specific (SMART) objectives, at least in terms of implementation. The objectives could include estimates of the acres, the length of fish bearing stream channels, and water volume they plan to protect by specific dates.” In response, the proponents identified five overall SMART objectives to be implemented by 2026. These include purchasing or protecting five properties adjacent to ESA-listed fish spawning grounds, 2 km of stream front with ESA designated critical habitat, 15 acres of riparian habitat adjacent to ESA designated critical habitat, 400 acre-feet of water rights in stream reaches where water quantity has been identified as a limiting factor, and three properties where restoration projects were implemented to address EDT or the RTT Biological Strategy for restoration potential. The proposal does not explain how these objectives were determined or how they were derived from the Biological Strategy or the Recovery Plan. In the next Annual Report, the proponents should provide a description of the basis for each of the five overall objectives. The ISRP recommends the proponents provide information on how the specific quantities in the five new objectives were developed in the next Annual Report.

The objective for acquisition of ESA-designated critical habitat seems surprisingly low. Because it calls for 2 km of stream front, the objective could be met with the acquisition of 1 km of stream length.

The 2020 ISRP review also recommended that the proponents should “indicate how protection of high-quality habitats would be prioritized or weighted relative to restoration of degraded habitats. The proposal should clarify how the relative benefits of protection and restoration will influence the prioritization of land acquisitions and water transfers.” The current proposal states that priority will be given to acquisition of properties that currently contain high quality habitat but are at risk to be degraded through development. It appears that this is an initial step after all information has been evaluated for the potential projects but before actual ranking. The proponents should clarify this explicitly in the formal guiding document for the process if it has not been included.

Q2: Methods

The proposal describes how EDT and RTT biological strategy information are used in the prioritization process. There is no explicit cost benefit analysis and prioritization decisions are based on professional judgment of cost effectiveness. Water transactions are carried out based on their own criteria for protection that inherently focuses on protection of instream flow in areas that have been identified as high priority flow-limited watersheds. The ISRP 2020 review requested information about protection of high-quality habitats, and three of the specific objectives focus on current high priority habitats.

The proposal identifies climate change and changes in land use practices in areas adjacent to properties as two major uncertainties. To assure that the benefits will occur in the face of climate change, priority is given to properties that are located in stream reaches where models indicate the reach will be habitable in 2040 based on NorWest model of stream temperature and the 2040 model run of the EDT tool. Do the future scenarios include projections of climate-related changes in streamflow? The proponents propose to deal with potential land-use changes by trying to acquire large parcels and to target parcels that are adjacent to other properties that are protected through conservation easements or other forms of protection.

The proposal provides a typical time frame for acquisition and implementation of the different types of acquisitions and restoration, but not specific details. The ISRP recommends that the project provide specific timelines in annual reports and work plans.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project coordinates with the Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP 200302200) Project to obtain information on habitat quality. Restoration projects are monitored through their respective BPA projects. The OBMEP project monitors fish presence and distribution of all life stages to ensure that acquired properties and water rights remain accessible and beneficial to ESA-listed fish. Acquired water rights are monitored through Qualified Local Entities. The proponents coordinate with the Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Project to confirm that post-acquisition management is in accordance with the original intent of the project.

The proponents have updated the prioritization process to use recently improved evaluation tools, which are updated with new data from EDT, the Biological Strategy or the UCSRB Prioritization Web Map. In addition, they have developed new strategies to cluster acquisition projects to safeguard the acquisitions and expand restoration project opportunities using adjacent habitat quality and diversity. Larger properties are targeted to make the acquisition process more efficient.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project has acquired 17 properties for $5,482,174 since 2008. The acquisitions have benefited fish and wildlife through the protection and restoration of 858 acres of riparian habitat, 9.8 km of stream length, 120.5 acre-feet/year of groundwater rights, and acquisition of 63.39 cfs of instream flow. The project has determined that improved habitat conditions have been documented through EDT analysis in areas that include past acquisitions.

References

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2018-1. Review of spring Chinook salmon in the upper Columbia River. ISAB 2018-1, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon, USA. https://www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/fw-independent-advisory-committees/independent-scientific-advisory-board/review-of-spring-Chinook-salmon-in-the-upper-columbia-river

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2019-3. ISAB Review of the Upper Columbia United Tribes’ Fish Passage and Reintroduction Phase 1 Report: Investigations Upstream of Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams (Reintroduction Report). ISAB 2019-3, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon, USA. https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/isab2019-3

ISRP (Independent Scientific Review Panel). 2020-1. ISRP Review the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation’s Land and Water Acquisition Habitat Project (2008-104-00). ISRP 2020-1. Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon, USA. https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/isrp-review-confederated-tribes-colville-reservation-s-land-and-water-acquisition-habitat-0

RTT (Regional Technical Team). 2019. A biological strategy to protect and restore salmonid habitat in the upper Columbia region. A report to the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. Previous versions in 2000, 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2019. https://www.ucsrb.org/science-resources/reports-plans/recovery-plan/#

RTT (Regional Technical Team). 2020. Habitat Action Prioritization within the Upper Columbia River Basin. A report to the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. https://www.ucsrb.org/mdocs-posts/rtt-habitat-action-prioritization-strategy-draft-updated-11-25-20/