The CTUIR Priority Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project cooperates with other groups to acquire easements and property to secure permanent protection for core anadromous fish habitat in CTUIR’s aboriginal area. The project has been successful, permanently protecting 5000 acres. The proponents adequately describe their relationships to other projects but do not indicate the relative contributions of their project-specific activities to the collective restoration efforts in the targeted basins.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans. Because of the importance of the proposal as a guiding document for the project, we encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to reflect these additions, but the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

1. Project evaluation and adjustment. Provide a description of the formal process for reviewing, evaluating, and adjusting the program broadly.

2. Restoration sites. Provide a summary (map, table) of the sites conserved up to this point and those in process, some basic biophysical characteristics of the properties, and the target species for the sites.

3. Application of monitoring data. Indicate how quickly data and analyses are received from the monitoring projects and, as well, how the analyses/results influence the process used for future purchases and easements.

4. Outcomes for Objective 1. Explain how the intended annual outcomes for Objective 1 were determined.

5. Benefits for fish and wildlife. Meet the 2013 Geographic Review qualification by providing “additional detail regarding CTUIR monitoring and how acquired parcels will be accounted for within the context of the regional framework for habitat status and trend monitoring.” Presumably this would include a landscape level analysis of the contribution of these acquisitions to the overall habitat quality available for fish and wildlife.

6. 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 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. 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 project has an overarching goal of securing permanent protection for core anadromous habitats in CTUIR’s aboriginal areas, and the goal is supported by a set of objectives. Objective 1 is clear and quantitative, but the subsequent objectives basically describe tasks required to achieve Objectives 1. While the proponents define the scope of the proposed efforts, objectives 2-8 are not really objectives. Many are methods and should be placed in the Methods section. In addition, most objectives are not in a SMART format, although the intentions are clear.

While the proposal provides quantitative and time bound outcomes for Objective 1, the remaining seven objectives are primarily implementation actions necessary to accomplish Objective 1 in a way that is technically sound. Further, the proposal does not explain how the quantitative outcomes in Objective 1 were developed from subbasin and recovery plans. The proponents need to explain how the intended annual outcomes were determined and should document this in the revised proposal.

Q2: Methods

The proponents emphasize the urgency of land acquisition and easements. The Priority Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project works closely with CTUIR’s established Land Acquisition Program to coordinate the acquisition of property and ensure consistency with CTUIR land and resource management goals. The proponents have developed thorough and effective methods for acquisitions and easements. In addition, other projects and BPA provide thorough ongoing review. To streamline property evaluations, CTUIR is developing an online ArcGIS application to better assess the potential benefits of a land acquisition prospect. Finally, the ISRP commends the proponents for expanding their partners and opportunities, including exploring the use of FEMA funds in recently flooded areas to acquire lands and remove infrastructure.

The Priority Stream Corridor Conservation and Protection Project coordinates with other projects within the CTUIR, as well as with the Umbrella and Programmatic projects in the Grande Ronde, Tucannon, and John Day River basins, to acquire and protect habitats for fish and wildlife. The project integrates the First Foods Policy into the landscape evaluation, prioritization, and acquisition process. While the project states that it collaborates with the Umbrella and Programmatic projects in these basins, the proposal does not mention the approaches used with those projects, such as using the Atlases, which have received favorable review from the ISRP.

The list of habitat project evaluation and prioritization criteria in Table 3 is informative. However, it does not provide special weighting to protect high quality intact habitat as opposed to degraded habitat that would be valuable for restoration. Given the high value of functional habitat, the project should consider expanding the criteria to protect ecologically healthy intact habitat.

The ISAB previously recommended land acquisition programs in the upper Columbia Basin to consider cost effectiveness in their ranking system (ISAB 2018-1). It is not apparent that the CTUIR criteria include any measure of cost effectiveness. We encourage the project to consider including some measure of cost-effectiveness in their ranking process.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal does not address either monitoring or project evaluation and adjustment (e.g., adaptive management process), but instead reviews the prioritization scheme for acquisitions. It is not clear if the project has a process for reviewing and evaluating their success in meeting program objectives, and whether the project has a decision process for modifying the direction or activities of the project if objectives are not being met.

The ISRP notes that monitoring the acquired parcels and easements is the responsibility of other projects, which are listed in Table 4. However, it is not clear how quickly the proponents receive analyses from these projects concerning the monitoring results, and how these analyses/results affect the process used for future purchases/easements. The ISRP assumes the review and cooperation from CTUIR and BPA supports the project evaluation and adjustment process, but a summary of the strategy should be provided.

The proposal briefly mentions climate change and uncertain market values as potential confounding factors. It does not discuss any of the components of climate change and how they will factor those into project priorities and actions. The proponents should provide a more thorough description of how potential confounding factors are considered in their prioritization process, especially climate change and related factors.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project has permanently protected 5,000 acres since 2015, which is impressive, with 2,500 more acres being actively considered for protection. However, while the ISRP appreciated the concise nature of the proposal, it does not include any detail on where those properties are located, which species benefited, and so forth. The ISRP made a similar request in prior reviews, which the proponents responded to with an explanation for why it is not realistic for them to tie monitoring to target species. Rather than a complicated monitoring plan, some basic information is needed on the properties already protected, both to better understand the project and to communicate effectively about its benefits. An example summary could include a map of the sites protected and a table of the site names, attributes of the land (e.g., area, priority, specific features), the type of conservation mechanism (easement, fee title), and the benefits (e.g., species benefited, connectivity to other habitats, ecosystem services, human values). There are a number of existing frameworks (Google “land conservation metrics”) that could be used as a template for such a summary.

There are inherent benefits to fish and wildlife by acquiring critical properties and having conservation easements. However, the proponents have not quantified how previous purchases/easements have improved habitat for fish and wildlife populations. This may be an issue of having and analyzing the monitoring data, and it needs to be addressed in future annual reports, work plans, and proposals. While the proposal lists the completed acquisitions for the five basins, the majority of which are in the Grande Ronde and Tucannon basins, it does not summarize the anticipated contribution of these acquisitions in terms of fish and wildlife or landscape level analysis of the relative benefits. The 2013 Geographic Review included a qualification for the CTUIR to provide “additional detail regarding CTUIR monitoring and how acquired parcels will be accounted for within the context of the regional framework for habitat status and trend monitoring.” The project still needs to provide a landscape level analysis of the contribution of these acquisitions to the overall habitat quality available for fish and wildlife.

In response to previous ISRP comments, the proponents note that identification of willing sellers is accomplished either through monitoring the market or by “prospecting” via reaching out to owners in priority river reaches and watersheds. The latter has the potential to elevate the expectations of the owners by exposing the high priority conservation status of the property, potentially in the absence of strong and timely motivation to sell. Similarly, a comprehensive ranked list of priority conservation targets can artificially elevate land values by creating the appearance of increased demand. Nevertheless, the ISRP would appreciate general descriptions of properties and easements being sought in order to better understand the restoration potential of properties being considered.

See Qualification.

The ISRP's qualifications from its previous review of this project in 2011 remain (see ISRP 2011- 23). Informed by the ISRP's 2011 review, the Council recommended in January 2012: "Bonneville will include as part of contracting specific deliverables for 1) the details of the framework the CTUIR references as a tool for prioritizing properties for potential acquisition, 2) a comprehensive plan or statement of reference condition that can be used as the basis to evaluate or compare each property presented as a priority for acquisition, and 3) additional detail regarding CTUIR monitoring and how acquired parcels will be accounted for within the context of the regional framework for habitat status and trend monitoring. Based on the CTUIR's development of the aforementioned detail as part of contracting, the Council recommends this project to Bonneville for implementation. This recommendation is conditioned on the sponsor addressing in contracting the issues raised by the ISRP. The Council requested that follow-up be provided by Bonneville that reflects these contractual elements were incorporated. In addition, the revised prioritization framework and updated narrative will be reviewed as part of the geographic review." BPA has not issued a contract for this project, and the issues and conditions in the Council's January 2012 recommendation have not been addressed. Therefore, the ISRP recommendation for the Geographic Review remains unchanged from the 2011 review recommendation of Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) (ISRP document 2011-23). The Council's January 2012 recommendation, as informed by the ISRP's review, still applies. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a response addressing the qualifications.

While this version of the proposal was marginally better than the last one, the sponsors need to adequately address some basic ISRP concerns. Acquisitions and easements on critical streams and land parcels should be a high priority and could provide significant opportunities for enhancing habitat and improving fish growth and survival. However, those actions need to be completed with a clear vision of how they contribute to larger goals, how the acquisition/easements will be affected by future environmental conditions, and how they will be monitored to show if the strategy is working.

The ISRP requests a response as follows:

1) Provide further responses to ISRP 2012 comments 2, 3, and 8.

ISRP Comment 2: Provide more detail on how the sponsors will determine quantitative anticipated benefits of land acquisition and leasing to fish and wildlife in terms of protection or restoration of productivity, abundance, diversity, and spatial structure.

ISRP Comment 3: Provide a rationale for the five criteria in the Acquisition Project Area Prioritization Worksheet, and for the implicitly equal (additive) weighting of each criterion. In particular, justify how criterion 5 (administrative value) should be combined with the other four criteria that measure biological value.

ISRP Comment 8: Outline how effectiveness monitoring of habitat and fish populations will be conducted. A detailed monitoring plan is not necessary at this point.

2) Provide an adaptive management process or strategy to evaluate whether the acquisitions/easements are fulfilling their intended purposes.

3) Provide a strategy or plan to address questions about “emerging” factors as noted above.

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

This proposal is for acquisition of land or easements in the Grande Ronde, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and John Day subbasins for protection and restoration of riparian areas to benefit ESA-listed spring Chinook and summer steelhead. The project focuses on securing permanent protection of priority anadromous fish core habitats in these subbasins through conservation easements and capital acquisition of fee title.

This project is identified as the CTUIR's primary project for providing permanent conservation of habitats under the Columbia River Accords agreement, and as contributing directly to the vision of Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposed work is consistent with the subbasin plans for the four subbasins, and other federal, state, and tribal recovery plans. The project has clear significance to regional programs. The sponsors and their partner organizations appear to have the technical background to successfully complete the activities

The emphasis is on acquiring core, high quality habitats that have been minimally disturbed or have a high potential for restoration. The approach seems to entail using the priority geographic areas identified in the subbasin plans as well as the Atlas as the basis for identifying and selecting acquisitions. When land acquisition opportunities become available in the priority geographic areas, the sponsors will prioritize these potential acquisitions for their conservation value using a set of criteria that numerically rank the acquisitions. Evaluations will be done by a multidisciplinary team.

The ISRP previously reviewed this project in 2012 and found that several issues needed to be addressed. The project was approved with a directive to review it again in this round of proposals when outcomes of the three tiered project prioritization were available. Three of these issues were not addressed adequately in the proposal.

Below, the ISRP comment from their 2012 review is noted first. CTUIR's response (dated10/12/11) to the each comment is given next. Finally, the ISRP comments on the response and whether it is adequately addressed in the present proposal are provided.

ISRP 2012 Comment 2: “…. more explanation is needed on the quantitative anticipated benefits to fish and wildlife in terms of protection or restoration of productivity, abundance, diversity, and spatial structure (presumably from EDT/QHA estimates).”

• Sponsor’s Response (partial): …. “Quantitative changes in productivity, abundance, etc will be evaluated at a watershed and subbasin scale as part of ongoing natural production R,M and E and not at the project or reach scale.”
• ISRP Comment: The present proposal does not offer a clear description of how this will be accomplished. The sponsors should develop a criterion that directly addresses the potential of a property for increasing abundance and productivity of fish.

ISRP 2012 Comment 3: “Some indication is needed of (a) the prioritization of the four subbasins – Grande Ronde, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and John Day – that are components of the acquisitions and (b) the anticipated extent of the acreage to be acquired.”

• Sponsor’s Response (partial): “The “Hillman Method” used by the Action Agencies to estimate population productivity improvement was not conducted in such a way as to permit comparison between subbasins.”
• ISRP Comment: The accumulated experience of the sponsors and other quantitative methods should allow prioritization of subbasins. This concern could be addressed more adequately in the present proposal.

The sponsors propose a process for identifying, prioritizing, and acquiring through purchase or lease floodplain sites in each of the four subbasins. The proposal includes a worked example of the prioritization process for an anticipated land acquisition. While this example was informative, the description of the prioritization process is still too vague to allow rigorous evaluation. The example in the Acquisition Project Area Prioritization Worksheet on pages 5-7 does not explain the three-tiered prioritization based on EDT/QHA analysis nor does it explain the rationale for using the 5 criteria for ranking sites. Choosing weights for multiple attributes in additive ranking schemes is a tricky business and warrants some testing in worked examples to demonstrate that ranks remain robust over a range of scenarios. The first two of the five criteria judge potential biological benefits of the site considered in isolation of other sites, resulting in subtotaled scores ranging from 2 to 6. The next two criteria adjust the total score upwards or downwards depending on the duration of benefits or potential synergies through connectivity with other actions, resulting in a modified subtotal ranging from 0 to 10. This sequence seems reasonable in principle.

The last criterion is poorly explained, but appears to be qualitatively different in that it scores administrative advantages or problems resulting from choosing the site in question, that is an attribute not directly related to biological benefits. Moreover, applying the fifth criterion produces a peculiar total that ranges from -3 to 13. Because the last criterion is qualitatively different, its appropriate weight will be difficult to judge without some experience; it probably makes more sense to graph the subtotal for criteria 1-4 (biological value) against the fifth criterion (administrative value) and to develop isopleths of perceived equivalent value by consensus. For example, in the current scoring procedure, two sites with total score of 10 would be considered equivalent, that is on the same isopleth in the plot suggested, even though the first has a biological value of 13 and an administrative value of -3, whereas the second has a biological value of only 7 and an administrative value of +3. Plotting values for trial examples and reflecting on the reasonableness of the outcomes would provide a way to gain confidence in the weighting system before applying it systematically. Perhaps this has already been done. If so, the process should be described in more detail.

ISRP 2012 Comment 8: Develop a monitoring and evaluation framework.

• Sponsors Response (partial): “…. CTUIR will continue to coordinate and integrate efforts of model watershed (s), ODFW, WDF, CRITFC, U.S. Forest Service, BOR to meet VSP, hatchery, and habitat effectiveness monitoring.”
• ISRP Comment: The present proposal did not provide enough detail to judge if the monitoring is appropriate or adequate to show that the land acquisitions have improved or maintained habitat and fish survivorship, abundance, and diversity.

The proposal lists one objective that is very broad and merely restates the purpose of the project. An outreach and education objective should be included to inform neighboring landowners and other members of the public about what activities in the acquisition are ongoing or planned, and the progress that is being made. Outreach and education could be highly beneficial in encouraging landowners to participate in some way in the conservation process.

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

This is a new project, and it does not provide accomplishments or results. No adaptive management process or strategy is articulated. A strategy for adaptive management clearly is needed.

Evaluation of Results

The purpose of this project is to acquire or lease land to protect or improve habitat to benefit ESA listed summer steelhead and spring Chinook. Acquisitions and easements on critical streams and land parcels should be a high priority and could provide significant opportunities for enhancing habitat and improving fish growth and survival.

The proposal was reviewed by the ISRP in 2012. The review identified several issues of concern and requested a response. The sponsors provided a response dated 10/12/11. In the current review the ISRP found that several of their original concerns were adequately addressed in the sponsor’s response and in the current proposal. The ISRP found that other issues (ISRP comments 2, 3, and 8) were insufficiently addressed in the proposal and again requested a response.

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

The sponsor has a long history of relationships with other groups and agencies. The sponsors cite relationships with several ongoing projects in the Grande Ronde, Umatilla, John Day, and Walla Walla subbasins but provide little information on how they are cooperating or coordinating with these projects. The counties do not appear to be directly involved in significant ways.

The proposal includes thoughtful consideration of the likely impacts of climate change, and how site acquisition decisions might reduce these impacts. It is not clear, however, that this reasoning was included in the five criteria used to rank sites.

Climate change is noted as an emerging limiting factor. However, it could easily be argued that it is no longer an “emerging” factor. Climate change started in the region about 1950 and this “phase” of loss of late summer snowpack is thought to be completed around 2030. There are new modeling environments available that the sponsors may wish to examine that give insights into future stream conditions. These modeling environments may help guide restoration actions.

Other “emerging limiting factors,” or just limiting factors, that received little attention in the proposal include non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals and land use. How will the proposed acquisitions be affected by these factors? Or, how can the acquisitions help mitigate some of their ecological effects?

Mussels should be listed as species of concern and should be considered in acquisitions. Mussels appear to be in serious decline in the region, and it would not be surprising to see some species proposed for listing in the next decade. It is important to start protecting them now so as to be prepared for future restrictions.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Deliverables describe the steps in the process of identification, prioritization, and acquisition or leasing of land. To ensure confidentiality, acquisitions and leases that are planned or are in process were not identified. The sponsors do not explicitly describe expected outcomes or products of the acquisitions. A clear set of specific objectives that describe what the sponsors hope to accomplish with each acquisition or lease and the means for accomplishing them would help define outcomes.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No comments.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 11:29:28 AM.

The ISRP recognizes that the project is potentially beneficial to both anadromous and resident species. However, the ISRP finds that not enough detail is provided in the proposal to fully assess potential benefits to fish and wildlife. Thus, the ISRP asks for a response.