The responses for this proposal were nearly identical to those for a companion and nearly identical proposal on Butter, McKay, and Willow creeks (2008-203-00). Hence, the ISRP comments are also very similar.

The proponents simplified their approach, as requested by the ISRP, but did not fully address the ISRP concerns in their very brief response. This was especially true for Objective 3, relating to developing a plan for habitat restoration and anadromous fish reintroduction. Thus, Objective 3 does not meet scientific criteria.

The ISRP agrees that the proponents should undertake Objectives 1 and 2, specifically:

a. Summarize historical habitat and anadromous fish distributions in these streams, and carefully and completely summarize what information has already been collected, as well as Traditional Ecological Knowledge based on oral histories.

b. Determine what new information is critical to collect, that is not already included in previous reports and plans.

c. Collect this new information about current conditions that is critical for developing a reintroduction plan.

Once these tasks have been completed, the ISRP asks that the proponents outline the tasks needed to develop a restoration plan based on these data, and submit a proposal to ISRP for this work. The timing of this proposal might coincide with the anticipated geographic review of habitat projects in about 18 months.

Several specific comments about the proposal are important to consider while undertaking this work on Objectives 1 and 2, including:

1. The proponents feel that RIPPLE-GEO is a powerful tool for analyzing stream geomorphology and habitat, and the budget includes $43K for Stillwater Sciences to conduct this work. However, there is no justification for why this takes precedence over determining whether temperatures are suitable, using FLIR or another technique carried out at the whole-basin scale. As a result, the original ISRP question remains, about whether such sophisticated modeling is warranted if temperatures are too warm, especially under projected climate change, or if habitat is simply too poor to consider any reintroduction. This potential conflict was not addressed. For example, it was unclear to the ISRP how median grain size of substrate in channel units would actually be used to assess suitable habitat for anadromous fish reintroduction.

2. In the end, any reintroduction would require a significant program of trapping, trucking, and hauling adult spawners into habitat that is in very poor condition. Likewise, downstream migrating smolts would encounter large populations of non-native fishes like smallmouth bass in the receiving reservoirs. The ISRP anticipates that an assessment will find that the feasibility of this reintroduction effort is minimal, and thus the benefits to fish and wildlife minimal as well.

3. As indicated earlier, the role of the changing climate in any reintroduction plan was not addressed, but needs to be in any new proposal, even if in a preliminary way.

Questions raised by the ISRP that require responses include: 1. The objectives for this work are unclear, and it seems like they could be simpler and more straightforward than presented in this proposal. Please rephrase more clearly. 2. Develop a simpler logic path to be used to lay out a hierarchy of limiting factors, and develop straightforward methods for sampling them. For example, if temperatures are limiting (as determined by FLIR), then there may be little point in measuring habitat in great detail until the problems with temperature are corrected. 3. Provide a summary of fish species status and trends (they might be surrogate species in these blocked subbasins), habitat, and limiting factor analysis that has already been assembled from previous efforts in these subbasins. Explain the deficiencies in the data and analysis and identify how the proposed work will rectify the deficiencies for planning reintroduction. 4. Will statistical modeling be useful for this small sample of basins, given the high variance in predictions? Would it be more effective to simply measure habitat directly on the ground or from low altitude flights, rather than attempting to predict it from models? 5. The deliverables (e.g., develop a GIS database, predict the potential for redds) are vague and disconnected. The ISRP had difficulty determining how the work proposed will use the information already available, and how it would meet the objective identified of predicting the success of anadromous salmonid reintroduction into these watersheds, or predicting where habitat should be restored. Please clarify the deliverables? Overview: The project proponents propose to evaluate the possibility of reintroducing anadromous salmon and steelhead and developing self-sustaining populations in three tributaries of the Snake River above Hell’s Canyon and several other dams. These plans assume that adult fish could be trapped and hauled above the dams, and smolts could be trapped and passed downstream. The main focus is on developing a comprehensive landscape/watershed scale evaluation of habitat features that are needed to sustain anadromous salmonid populations in these streams. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The overall objective of assessing the reintroduction and recolonization potential of salmon and steelhead into Burnt, Powder, and the Malheur rivers is consistent with the habitat focus of both the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and the recovery objectives of the ESA. Likewise, focusing the work at the landscape and watershed scale is ideal for assessing whether freshwater habitat is suitable for anadromous fish reintroduction. However, the objectives for this work are unclear, and it seems like they could be simpler and more straightforward than presented in this proposal. Three issues are important: A. A basic hierarchy of limiting factors - If salmon and steelhead are to develop successfully reproducing populations, they must (in order of their life history) (1) be provided access to habitat as adults, (2) have access to suitable stream temperatures throughout summer, (3) find suitable spawning and rearing habitat, and (4) smolts must gain passage downstream for outmigration. Therefore, even if adults are trapped and hauled above certain barriers, if temperatures prevent their summer survival, then degraded spawning or rearing habitat is a moot point. Given this, it seems like the proposal could be organized to assess this hierarchy of limiting habitat factors: 1) Identify fish passage barriers for adults and methods to surmount them (barrier removal, fish ladder, trap and haul) 2) Use Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) videography to assess summer temperatures during critical periods, throughout the segments where adult salmon and steelhead oversummer, and juvenile salmon and steelhead parr rear during summer 3) If temperatures are suitable, use a combination of GIS, regular color videography (done at the same time as FLIR), and on-the-ground surveys to make a continuous assessment of spawning and rearing habitat throughout the tributaries. If temperatures are suitable, then more focus can occur on habitat, but also with a simpler logic than in the proposal, such as: a. Determine through literature and expert opinion what large-scale features of habitat salmon and steelhead use at critical life stages (adults, age-0, age-1 and older) during key seasons (summer, winter) b. Determine which geomorphic or mesohabitat features (e.g., pools) provide this habitat c. Determine how to measure surrogates of these features using GIS, or simply measure them using low-elevation flights (color videography) or on the ground (see below) 4) Identify fish passage barriers for outmigrating smolts, and methods to surmount them A main point is that if any steps in this logic chain are not met (e.g., temperatures are unsuitable), then it may make little sense to proceed further in an expensive or complicated analysis and modeling effort to predict suitable spawning and rearing habitat. B. Is existing information being adequately used? It is unclear whether data already available from previous fish and habitat assessments are being used for this new work, such as from the 1986 Umatilla anadromous fish restoration master plan, the relevant subbasin plans, and TRT mid-Columbia steelhead ESU assessments. The ISRP felt that much is probably already known about the four limiting factors above, which could quickly be summarized and used in this project. C. Statistical modeling will likely be less useful than proposed. The proposal calls for statistical modeling, but the objectives were vague and seemed driven more by the techniques rather than objectives. That is, if the main objective is to assess whether these three basins (and three others in a companion proposal) have suitable habitat for steelhead and/salmon reintroductions, then there seems little point to developing a complex statistical model. The reason is that the variance on the predictions from this small sample of basins (N=6 for both proposals) would be great, rendering the models of relatively little usefulness for management decisions. Instead, direct assessments of habitat using GIS, FLIR, color videography, and on the ground measurements, would be much more useful. For example, even if walking each basin takes 3-4 weeks of work, this would be far less time than the work required to develop, fit, and interpret a statistical model that has limited usefulness because the predictions are highly variable. If the more direct assessment of habitat suggested here is adopted, then only much simpler statistical analysis would be needed. For example, see the logistic regression conducted by Torgersen et al. (1999. Ecological Applications) for FLIR and direct habitat data (pool volume by reach). 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management While this is a new project, habitat assessments, reintroduction, and supplementation are not new to these subbasins. Either this section, or the problem statement, should review what has been accomplished in these subbasins and address what has worked and what has not. How will a new assessment provide different recommendations for restoration potential and strategies? 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Because these are low-elevation, semi-arid basins, the emerging limiting factor of climate change is important to assess. If climate change is projected to either push temperatures beyond lethal thresholds or further reduce flow and prevent passage, then habitat restoration will be pointless. At least some “first-cut” analysis of potential changes in temperature and flow is needed to prevent putting effort and funding into projects that have a high likelihood of eventually failing. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Overall, the deliverables (e.g., develop a GIS database, predict the potential for redds) are vague and disconnected. The ISRP had difficulty determining (1) how the work proposed will use the information already available and (2) how it would meet the objective identified of predicting the success of steelhead reintroduction into these watersheds or predicting where habitat should be restored.