The ISRP requests the proponents to provide information on the following condition in the next annual report and future workplans. Because the objectives in the proposal provide long-term guidance and documentation for the project, we encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to include these revised or additional objectives.

• SMART objectives. The proponents should address the ISRP’s questions and recommendations about their objectives in the next annual report. They should provide quantitatively explicit objectives for their collective restoration efforts and intended ecological outcomes. They should indicate the levels of response or outcomes that they would consider meets these objectives.

In our preliminary review, we requested responses on three topics, and our assessments of the proponents’ responses are provided below:

1. SMART objectives. In their response, the proponents did not provide explicit objectives for their collective restoration efforts and intended ecological outcomes. The original proposal stated that the overall objective for the project is “to more than double the linear amount of completed mainstem complexity and side channel restoration treatments in high priority restoration stream segments within the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee Subbasins over the next decade.” This indicates the intended length of all restoration actions, but it does not identify the outcomes for habitat or fish and wildlife populations.

While the information does not fulfill the need for SMART objectives, the original proposal provides useful information in the list of priority life stages and limiting factors intended to be addressed for 42 new projects. In their response, the proponents indicate that they use information embedded in the Restoration Prioritization Framework to link the actions of their restoration actions to limiting factors for target fish species. They give an example of one project in the Twisp River that started in 2016 and ended in 2017. The example identifies known limiting factors and a combination of qualitative and quantitative information from the 2015 Reach Assessment that was used to identify the need for restoration and prioritize project selection. It then quantifies the intended physical outcomes for channel structure and riparian cover for this past project.

The response suggests that providing the requested level of detail for roughly 80 restoration sites in this proposal would be beyond the scope of the ISRP review. Of those 80 projects, 27 are planned projects in the Methow subbasin, 5 in the Entiat, and 10 in the Wenatchee for 2021-2026. The other 38 sites were completed in the previous funding cycle.

The example of the past project is useful for helping the ISRP understand the types of SMART objectives that are developed for each project. The ISRP assumes these implementation objectives and metrics for future evaluation are developed after the site has been identified in the Restoration Prioritization Framework process. The original proposal generally describes a process that develops design criteria that conform to streamlined habitat restoration permitting programs, such as BPA’s HIP IV conservation measures. While these Best Management Practices may not require intensive effectiveness monitoring, quantitative objectives are still needed for the overall project and specific sub-projects. The ISRP agrees that these design criteria and application of recognized restoration actions are important components of the project, but they do not provide the project-level identification of their intended outcomes for habitat or fish and wildlife populations.

The ISRP recognizes that it may not be clear what type of SMART objective we would consider appropriate for this project. For the 42 new projects in the original proposal, 21 projects identified “side channel and large wood restoration” as the restoration action and 2 identified “large wood restoration” as the type of action. If restoration of amounts of large wood is one of the primary goals of the overall project, the SMART objective should identify the quantitative outcome and timeframe for attaining that outcome that the proponents intend to achieve. An example of a SMART objective for the overall outcomes of this project for large wood would be:

“Restore amounts of large wood to target levels in XX miles of the XX miles of stream by XX [date] in the three subbasins that have been identified as deficient in large wood. Target levels will be based on wood loading amounts identified for unimpaired streams in the subbasins, adjusted for stream size and location.”

The ISRP notes that the proponents could provide information on 1) the miles of stream for which wood will be added within the next funding period and/or 2) the miles of stream that meet intended target levels and the timeframe the proponents feel will be necessary to meet the targets.

Because side channel reconnection or creation is another major goal of the overall project, an example for side channel restoration could be:

“Increase length of side channel by XX miles from 2022 to 2026, which would restore XX% of the potential side channel habitat that has been identified as needed in the subbasins based on landscape analysis, and increase the total miles of side channel reconnected by this project since 2009 by XX%.”

The ISRP encourages the proponents to contact us if they have additional questions or issues they would like to discuss.

2. Assessing results. The ISRP is trying to determine if and how the proponents plan to evaluate their overall restoration outcomes and benefits to fish and wildlife. The proponents’ response notes that the Proposal Form Template for this ISRP review does not include a request for this information, but it indicates that they plan to track physical restoration metrics of implemented projects and recalibrate their indicators of ecological condition.

The Proposal Form Template asks the proponents to “briefly describe the original goals and objectives, and the progress achieved to date. Sufficient detail is needed so that reviewers can understand what was done, what outcomes occurred, and what lessons were learned from the previous work.” In addition, it asked the proponents to include “Results – what were the results of the actions implemented for each objective?” and “Lessons learned – what was learned from the results, to what degree were the objectives achieved, and how were objectives and actions modified as a result? Describe the broader impacts of the project, including how the project has influenced management, benefited society, informed other projects in the Columbia River Basin, or improved effectiveness and efficiency. Also describe how the results from your project could contribute to broader efforts including status and trend monitoring, life-cycle models, regional actions, and mitigation outcomes.”

The ISRP considers such assessment to be consistent with the elements requested in the proposal guidance, and we request all long-term projects to evaluate their overall outcomes and benefits. This project is only 12 years old, and we recognize that it may still be early for a thorough evaluation of their program, but we recommend that the proponents begin to develop a plan for such an assessment. After this funding period, they likely will have implemented 80 projects, which should provide a substantial body of information for documenting the benefits of their program to fish and wildlife and highlighting major lessons learned for other projects.

The original proposal describes the Post-Implementation Monitoring Program that evaluates the implementation and assessment of conditions in years 1, 2, 3, and 5 following the construction year. Do the proponents have plans to evaluate the collective outcomes and success of the 38 projects it has implemented to date and 42 projects it plans to implement in the next funding period?

3. M&E matrix – support. The proponents indicate that this request is beyond the scope and scale of their project resources. Their cover memo states that they are working with BPA and others to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework to address this area of ISRP and regional concern. They consider project effectiveness monitoring to be important, but it requires more investment than is available in their budget.

As the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program develops efforts to identify monitoring activities and coordination between projects in major subbasins, the ISRP encourages this project to contribute its expertise and resources to help create an effective summary of RM&E efforts in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. In addition to providing important information for the Fish and Wildlife Program, development of an overall summary of the M&E efforts in the Upper Columbia River also would inform and strengthen the restoration efforts of this project as well.

Additional points for the Council to consider:

The ISRP notes for the Council and BPA that the response from the Yakama Nation emphasizes that it does not support the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation’s proposal to expand the geographic area of OSHIP (200722400) into the Entiat and Wenatchee subbasins. They argue that those two subbasins lie entirely within the Ceded Territory of the Yakama Nation according to the Walla Walla Treaty of 1855. The Council and BPA will need to consider the Yakama Nation’s concerns in determining the proposed area for Project 200722400.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

The Yakama Nation Fisheries Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Project (YNF UCHRP) conducts restoration projects to restore degraded habitats in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins. The project has substantial funding through the Accord (~ $8 million/yr) to restore habitat for fish and wildlife. This long-standing project has undoubtedly improved fish habitat in the upper Columbia. The ISRP appreciates the development of the Yakama Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM) Project (201700300), which should provide biological effectiveness monitoring for future actions and lead to a clear evaluation of benefits to fish. The ISRP also appreciates the effort that the proponents took to provide a clear, concise proposal.

The ISRP has questions about potential overlap with the Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP; 200722400) conducted by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) to restore habitat in the Okanogan and Methow subbasins. The OSHIP proponents are proposing to expand into the Entiat and Wenatchee subbasins to become the Upper Columbia Habitat Implementation Program (UCHIP). The proponents of the current project mention OSHIP, but not the OSHIP expansion. The OSHIP proponents do not mention the Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration project. Clarification is needed about efforts of both projects to coordinate their implementation and monitoring.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following in a point-by-point response or a revised proposal with highlighted changes:

1. SMART objectives. Provide measurable SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for each project to evaluate progress towards addressing limiting factors for fish and wildlife from restoration actions.

2. Assessing results. Describe the project’s long-term plan to assess and document the overall contribution of the project to the conservation and restoration of fish and wildlife in the subbasins and the likely benefits to fish and wildlife.

3. 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. 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 YNF UCHRP conducts restoration projects to restore degraded habitats in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins. The project cooperates with a number of other restoration planning, prioritization, and implementation projects. The YNF UCHRP uses the Salmon Recovery Plan Biological Strategy and Habitat Action Prioritization process to evaluate, prioritize, and design restoration actions. The proposal identifies a single goal to enact as many priority habitat restoration actions as possible. This is a simplistic implementation goal.

The proposal does not provide SMART objectives and instead indicates that its objective is to double the linear amount of restoration actions in the mainstem and side channels in the three subbasins within the next 10 years. There is no indication that the project develops explicit quantitative physical or biological objectives, and no objectives are listed for previous projects. Instead, the project lists limiting factors and life stages of Chinook and steelhead present in the selected restoration sites, which are derived from the Biological Strategy and Habitat Action Prioritization process.

Q2: Methods

The YNF UCHRP participates in the overall restoration planning in the upper Columbia River Basin and uses the Salmon Recovery Plan Biological Strategy and Habitat Action Prioritization process to evaluate, prioritize, and design restoration actions. The ISAB reviewed the biological strategy and prioritization process in its report on the upper Columbia River Spring Chinook salmon (ISAB 2018-1) and found them to be scientifically sound and appropriate for landscape evaluation and project prioritization. The prioritization process of the YNF UCHRP appears to differ from the habitat action prioritization process of the Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team (RTT 2020). The process does not appear to consider protection vs. restoration and the weighting system that was proposed by the RTT. Cost effectiveness is based on a simple ranking of high, moderate, or low relative cost. The designation for Benefit-to-Cost is based on dividing the benefit score by the simple three-rank cost score. Feasibility is ranked but is not used in scoring. The text and Appendix do not indicate how the designation is used.

Design and construction is done by professional engineering firms and completed under the BPA Habitat Improvement Program Biological Opinion, which gives guidelines for categories of actions such as installing large wood and improving secondary channel and floodplain interactions. This project does not include that RM&E component, but the proponents are conducting RM&E studies on three other projects. These include two side channels with groundwater inputs and complex thermal refugia in which juveniles and adult spawners can thrive, and an upcoming widespread monitoring project that aims to monitor most future projects with a strong statistical design.

Several key papers indicate that in addition to physical habitat, food webs are very important to the response by fish in these watersheds. Bellmore et al. (2013, 2017) reported that the strongest responses by Chinook salmon are likely to be from reconnecting side channels, which is the focus of some of the proposed projects. In contrast, adding complexity to main channel habitats may create better habitat for other fish like whitefish and sculpin, which potentially compete with juvenile salmon or steelhead for food. Whitney et al. (2020) reported, based on a simulation model, that the effects of habitat restoration can depend on other variables such as dissolved nutrients from fish carcasses, fish predators/competitors, invertebrates that are less vulnerable to predation and potentially shunt energy away from fish, and riparian vegetation. Hence, limiting factors can vary among sites even within the same basin, reducing the success rate of projects like these that address only a certain suite of factors. Does this project consider these factors in the design and evaluation of their restoration actions?

The proposal provides a simple timeline of the typical annual cycle of overall tasks. The ISRP assumes that the proponents provide more detailed timelines in their annual work plans and annual reports.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The YNF UCHRP conducts post-project implementation monitoring, typically for 1, 2, 3, and 5 years following the construction year. An engineering team compares the as-built design to the conditions in following years. A concern is that nearly all the measurements are qualitative, based on visual surveys or photo points, rather than specific measurements. A positive aspect is that the guidelines and plan for this monitoring are specific and achievable.

The project does not conduct physical or biological monitoring to determine benefits to fish and wildlife. The proponents assume that such benefits are likely to occur if they base their actions on 1) a scientifically reviewed Biological Strategy, 2) a scientifically reviewed evaluation and prioritization process, and 3) implement practices that regional effectiveness monitoring (e.g., AEM) and local monitoring projects have found to be biologically and physically effective (Best Management Practices).

For biological monitoring, the proponents state that they rely on three other Yakama Nation projects. Two of these projects address specific side-channel restoration projects; however, the reference links provided on pages 25-26 do not provide information on biological effectiveness of the habitat modifications. The proponents rely on a new Upper Columbia Monitoring Project (201700300) and the AEM Project (201600100) to provide answers about which kinds of projects are most effective at increasing fish habitat use, growth, survival, and reproduction. It remains to be seen whether these projects can deliver that information, as the proponents point out for AEM in their Response to the 2013 Geographic Category Review Qualification #1. Understanding the large-scale and long-term effects of these habitat projects remains a major evaluation need.

The project coordinates with several regional projects, but the proposal does not indicate that they coordinate with several other relevant projects, including the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook and Steelhead Juvenile and Adult Abundance, Productivity and Spatial Structure Monitoring Project (201003400; WDFW), NOAA’s survival study, or the Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration project (200810200; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation).

Yakama Nation Fisheries staff develop annual work plans based on the goals and objectives described above, and adjust plans based on quarterly or bi-annual coordination meetings. These staff participate in the RTT and update them with new data that allows potential changes in priorities. The proponents also update the UCRTT with results from the additional three RM&E projects described above, which may help assess which types of projects will have the greatest effect on fish habitat use, growth, survival, and reproduction.

The YNF UCHRP identifies climate change, out of basin habitat conditions and life stage bottlenecks, land use changes, changing regulations and resource management policies as confounding factors. The effects of climate change, primarily owing to warmer air and water temperatures – more rain vs. snow in winter, less snowpack, earlier runoff, and lower base flows – are expected to reduce habitat suitability for fish and hence their survival and reproduction. The proponents are working with relevant experts to design projects that can supply off-channel cold water refuges under future conditions. An overarching goal is to provide habitat that allows ESA-listed populations to be more resilient to more frequent and larger stresses

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project reports that it implemented 38 project actions in the Upper Columbia Basin over the last decade, including 16 miles of mainstem treatments, 5.5 miles of side channel treatments, and addition of 4,600 pieces of large wood. However, the actual effectiveness of project actions has not yet been documented. The proposal provides no interpretation of the relative contribution of these actions to benefit fish and wildlife in the three basins, either in terms of fish abundance and productivity, overall habitat conditions, or status and trends. The Habitat Report of the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB 2014) provides a readily accessible context for such an analysis, and the life cycle models and floodplain models in these three basins provides an additional context for reporting the contribution of the project to fish and wildlife. The ISRP recommends that the project use these sources of information to better demonstrate the value of their actions to benefit fish and wildlife in the basins.

References

Bellmore, J.R., C.V. Baxter, K.D. Martens, and P.J. Connolly. 2013. The floodplain food web mosaic: a study of its importance to salmon and steelhead with implications for their recovery. Ecological Applications 23:189–207.

Bellmore J.R., J.R. Benjamin, M. Newsom, J.A. Bountry, and D. Dombroski. 2017. Incorporating food web dynamics into ecological restoration: a modeling approach for river ecosystems. Ecological Applications 27:814-832.

UCSRB (Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board). 2014. Integrated Recovery Program Habitat Report. Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, Wenatchee, WA.

Whitney E.J., J.R. Bellmore, J.R. Benjamin C.E. Jordan. J.B. Dunham, M. Newsom, and M. Nahorniak. 2020. Beyond sticks and stones: Integrating physical and ecological conditions into watershed restoration assessments using a food web modeling approach. Food Webs 25:e00160.

The responses to the ISRP for questions 2, 3, and 4 raised in the preliminary review were not adequate. While it is true that this project is focused on implementing habitat restoration strategies, the purpose of these actions is to improve aquatic habitat to improve survival of specific life-cycle stages of anadromous spring Chinook and steelhead.

The work this project executes is coordinated through Watershed Action Teams and Regional Technical Teams and vetted through the Action Agency Expert Panel. Projects selected and implemented are intended to fulfill obligations under the FCRPS BiOp for offsite mitigation to improve salmon abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity. Consequently, it is essential that the project incorporates and demonstrates a knowledge of the current status of the focal species, the current status of the physical habitat, the desired restored state of the focal species, and the desired restored state of the physical habitat; an understanding of the hypothesized linkage between the state of the habitat and the state of the focal species; knowledge of how the fish species are being monitored; knowledge of how the habitat is being monitored; and knowledge of the status of whether restoration efforts are achieving their intended benefit to salmon and steelhead.

This project takes place in a large area in which many other organizations are engaged in aquatic and riparian habitat restoration, as well as implementing a variety of water transaction agreements. It is clear to the ISRP that the level of biological effectiveness monitoring among projects is very uneven. Simply stating that effectiveness monitoring is the responsibility of a partner organization is no guarantee that assessment of restoration effectiveness will be sufficient to judge the overall success of a large project such as this one. Details are needed. For this reason, we believe that a comprehensive effort should be undertaken among Upper Columbia partners to develop an explicit monitoring program in which the responsibilities of each partner are clearly spelled out. The science conference in November is a step in the right direction, but the ISRP feels that a specific plan should be the outcome of the conference, and that the plan should be available for ISRP review by the end of the year.

The primary need for improvement in this project is the integration between the selection and implementation of habitat restoration actions and the benefits they are intended to provide for focal fish species. This need for improvement was apparent in the site visit, presentations, and response. Moreover, this was identified as a major issue in the ISRP 2009 project review and, to date, has not been addressed by the sponsors, BPA, or the Council. Because this is a wide-ranging project that includes many sites that potentially benefit a number of species of concern, monitoring the biological effectiveness of restoration actions is critically important. In the response to the ISRP, the sponsor states that progress will be made toward implementing an expanded effectiveness monitoring program at an Upper Columbia Science Conference in November 2013. The qualification is that the project sponsors and their partners should develop an agreed-upon set of metrics for evaluating biological effectiveness, a schedule for implementing effectiveness monitoring, a plan for evaluating and archiving data, and a procedure for incorporating monitoring information into future restoration plans. This document should be submitted by the end of 2013 and reviewed by the ISRP.

A response is requested for a revised proposal. While this is a proposal to continue useful work, the following information is needed in order for the ISRP to fully judge its scientific adequacy:

1) In the significance to regional programs section, provide the RPA 35.1 table 5 gaps for each subbasin and identify the anticipated gains in habitat values from this project.

2) In the problem statement, provide a summary of the focal species’ current status and desired gains in VSP from habitat restoration in each subbasin. Further, provide context and justification for individual restoration priorities and linkage to the BiOp RPA 35 and Upper Columbia recovery plan.

3) Clarify how this project is coordinated with the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat project, with which it apparently shares many objectives and deliverables.

4) Explain how this project is linked to regional monitoring programs, and in particular, which monitoring programs will be involved in monitoring the effectiveness of each of the nine deliverables.

Summary Comments

The goal of this project is to improve habitat conditions for salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins to a degree capable of supporting sustainable populations. This proposed project is specifically intended to restore ecological functions to stream habitat in the three identified subbasins in order to contribute to the recovery of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. In addition, the project is intended to be holistic in nature and thus to improve habitat for other fish and aquatic as well as terrestrial species present in these areas. The overarching goal is of significance to a number of regional restoration programs.

The project was evaluated by the ISAB in 2009 and concerns were raised about post-treatment monitoring of habitat restoration actions. The ISRP believed that, while the value of habitat projects identified through the process described in the proposal appeared obvious and compelling, the habitat work needed to be accompanied by a reasonably explicit monitoring plan. Otherwise important learning opportunities would be lost and the adaptive management value of the actions would be compromised. The present version of the proposal does little to resolve these concerns.

The sponsors appear to have the technical expertise to carrying out the restoration actions. They have been implementing the actions for several years and, we believe, have learned the best ways to accomplish the actions.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The linkage of the project to regional programs was for the most part described. However the specific details of how this project’s work is intended to contribute to the BiOp RPA 35 and recovery plan priorities is not adequately presented. BiOP RPA 35.1 is quite specific regarding improvement in complexity or categories of habitat features within each subbasin. The proposal should provide the gaps from RPA 35.1 Table 5 for each subbasin included in this proposal, and identify how much of the required improvement from 2014 through 2018 will be undertaken by this project.

One obvious question, however, was how this project was related to the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat project (2010-001-00), with which it appears to have a significant overlap of objectives and restoration locations. The proposal did not mention how the two projects, with similarly large budgets, would be coordinated. That is would they share resources and implementation responsibilities in subbasins where they have a common interest?

Problem Statement: The information in the problem statement is overly general and too brief. The proposal should summarize the current status of ESA listed salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, the desired status in the BiOp and recovery plan timeframes (2018 and 2033 – 10 and 25 years after the 2008 BiOp), and the hypothesized gains to be achieved with habitat restoration. The proposal provides citations where the ISRP and others can find much of this information, but a cogent summary is needed in the proposal itself to establish context for the individual actions. The opening paragraph in the Significance to Regional Programs section states: “The goal is to re-establish the ability of the ecosystem to maintain its function and organization without continued human intervention”. In the problem statement the ISRP would appreciate more information on the balance of actions to achieve long-term watershed process improvement at the landscape scale and actions intended to provide near-term site and reach scale improvement in symptoms caused by larger scale disturbance. The sections of the introduction that emphasize that habitat restoration will take place within assessment units and address limiting factors identified as priorities in the Recovery Plan and Subbasin Plans is helpful. It is however difficult to grasp what additional assessment and planning is required, a timeframe for completing work, and a timeframe for observing a response in physical habitat attributes and ultimately in fish population vital parameters.

Objectives: There is only one objective: Comprehensive Habitat Restoration. The objective is overly vague and lacks quantification but can be better examined via the deliverables for the project. While it is reassuring to see the subbasin plans being used, the specific habitat objectives need to be better identified. Success and how it will be assessed are not described, although such a description is requested in the proposal form.

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

Accomplishments and Results: The proposal provides details about the numbers of assessments completed, projects planned, started, and completed during the recent work cycle. The sponsors have completed a number of physical restoration actions and the reporting rate is satisfactory. Unfortunately, the specific objectives for past actions were not quantitative so it is not possible to evaluate if they are successful in meeting their programmatic goals. Further, nearly all the monitoring conducted was for Individual Project Engineering Performance. It appears that little ecological monitoring was conducted.

The ISRP needs to see the ecological performance relative to the timeframe expected under the BiOp and Recovery Plan, identification of shortfalls under those plans, and discussion of whether the overall ecological goals can be achieved for the 2018 period of the MOA.

According to the proposal this project is linked to a number of regional monitoring programs such as ISEMP, PNAMP, PIBO, and others. As well, the Entiat is the site of an ISEMP Intensively Monitored Watershed. We would like more information on coordination between this project, which is apparently limited to restoration implementation, and the other regional monitoring programs. What information is passed from this project to the other monitoring efforts, what information is received from them, and how are monitoring data used to inform new restoration actions? Also, will biological monitoring take place at every restoration location implemented by this project, or a subset of sites?

Adaptive Management: There is no adaptive management plan or strategy specifically for this project. Reference is made to an adaptive management loop in the recovery plan, but how it will function, and what metrics and methods apply to this project are absent. There is no explanation of who is responsible for evaluating the actions in this project and the governance for implementing a different suite of actions if that should be required. A discussion of the variables being evaluated by the adaptive management conceptual models, the threshold values that would trigger actions, the alternative actions under consideration, and dates when evaluations will take place need to be provided. All actions should have testable goals (hypotheses), appropriate monitoring, analyses, and a process for adjusting future actions, if necessary. Further, it is not clear that this section was updated from the previous proposal. For example, the sponsors are still planning to hold a workshop in November 2009.

The executive summary lists various entities involved in monitoring and evaluation of the project. However, at least one of the entities (CSMEP) is no longer functioning. And others like PNAMP do not actually collect field data and conduct assessments. So somewhere in the proposal there is a need to be specific about which entity is collecting field data, which is estimating derived parameters, and which is making conclusions about efficacy using the estimated parameters.

There is no response provided for past ISRP reviews. This omission needs to be addressed, especially considering the concerns in the 2009 review.

Evaluation of Results

In the Explanation of Recent Financial Performance section of the proposal, the sponsor summarizes each year activities:

FY2009 – Started four Reach Assessments. Constructed 1 project, designed 5 projects, and funded one other.

FY2010 - Completed four Reach Assessments, completed one design and began designs for eight additional projects, completed construction on four projects and funded one other. Began design on two large projects to be implemented in FY2011. The UCHRP was fully staffed by this time.

FY2011 - Completed designs for six large projects (did not implement because of high water), began design of three projects, completed one small project, began two Reach Assessments and completed the Middle Methow River Safety Assessment.

FY2012 - Completed nine restoration projects, completed design of three projects, completed Upper Wenatchee River Safety Assessment, completed one and began one reach assessment.

The “Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact” section of the proposal list the name and river mile section of priority reaches and provides a more detailed presentation of the information above in tables organized by subbasin. The information provided by the sponsor is interesting but not sufficient for the ISRP to evaluate the extent to which the process of project development (expert panel/watershed team), implementation, and evaluation is working to achieve the goals of the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery Plan, and Tribal and Subbasin fishery objectives.

The ISRP needs to know the amount of habitat work needed in each subbasin, how much assessment is needed, how much has been planned, how much has been implemented, and the state of assessment. The ISRP needs to be able to determine that each element of RPA 35 was fulfilled.

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

Project Relationships: The relationships section of the proposal lists all the former projects that have been incorporated into Project 2009-003-00. It appears that this project is a recent consolidation of approximately 44 individual projects. Given the geographic scope and range of habitat actions implemented the proposal should outline the administrative structure to manage these in an effective manner. Specifically, how are the individual projects reviewed for scientific rigor and prioritized? Is there a review team, with an appropriate level and scope of expertise, to do this?

The ISRP needs more information on other entities that are also conducting work in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins and how the Yakama Nation's projects are integrated with those efforts.

The executive summary provides a list of projects that contribute to monitoring, but the details of the relationships are not provided in any other section of the proposal. There are notes in the results table that ISEMP is monitoring some projects. What are the project’s relationships with other entities? What are the details of the relationships for specific restoration actions and goals? Are the data, if available, delivered in a timely manner so as to allow adjustments to on-the-ground habitat actions?

Emerging Limiting Factors: Climate change is mentioned as an emerging limiting factor, but other important factors are not mentioned, for example toxic agricultural chemicals, future water withdrawals for agriculture, hatchery impacts, non-native invasions, and predation. How are these factors incorporated into restoration strategies and priorities? They are all important and each has the potential to undermine costly restoration efforts. Further, while climate change is acknowledged in this proposal, it is not being adequately addressed for a program of this scope. There are approaches in use to gain insights into future flows, and these insights can help shape restoration strategies and actions. These include scenario analyses to inform and improve existing flow restoration and habitat projects (see Donley et al 2012. Global Change Biology (2012), doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02773.x). As one example, it is ecologically important to assess in simulated scenario the sensitivity of late summer (July, August, and September) flows to the following variable both singly and in combination: climate change, changes in the quantity of water used for irrigation, and possible changes to existing water resource policy. Flows can be modeled using the Water Evaluation and Planning system (WEAP; as well as other modeling platforms) under historical and projected conditions (for example, 2020 and 2040) for each scenario. Models to perform analyses like these were not mentioned in the proposal. With the scope of restoration being planned and prioritized, assessment beyond geomorphic analysis is warranted. Further, should mussels and specific riparian birds be included as focal species?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

This section is reasonably complete. According to the proposal, specific restoration locations have already been identified while others will await environmental assessments before priority sites are determined. Three restoration categories – instream flow improvements, irrigation screen installation and replacement, and cattle exclusion fencing – are mentioned in the executive summary but not specifically identified in the objectives or deliverables. We assume this means that those types of projects will be minor additions to the suite of actions to be funded under this proposal.

While the objectives and deliverables were well described, there was no mention of the primary target fish species that would be benefited by particular restoration actions. It is assumed that Chinook and steelhead are the focal species for most actions, but some of the work will improve habitat for coho salmon, bull trout, and Pacific lamprey. It would be helpful to include a list of target species for each deliverable.

Additionally, deliverables need to be quantitative and have associated timelines for successful completion. Some deliverables do this, but many do not. Further, without any direct monitoring for effectiveness, it is not possible to tell if the work elements and metrics are the best for specific situations or if the work elements and metrics need to be modified in any way.

Professional publications in a refereed journal should be listed as a deliverable. It is important for large scale projects, like this one, to provide leadership in the broader restoration community.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

According to the proposal this project does not engage in monitoring, and therefore there were no links to MonitoringMethods.org. Nonetheless, evaluation is required, even if field data are collected and analyzed by another project or entity. Somewhere in the proposal, a reasonably detailed data evaluation process needs to be described.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 4:11:46 PM.

Because the proposal primarily focused on describing the background and justification of the process of prioritizing habitat restoration in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins, it is premature for the ISRP to comment on this project’s scientific soundness until more information is provided. The narrative suggests that the planned activities are consistent with other inventory and planning efforts in the province, and we assume that funding from the Accord MOA will help provide needed human and other resources in subbasins where such resources are spread thin. However, this proposal in its present form does not contain sufficient technical detail for a scientific review. We request a revised proposal that provides sufficient detail for a technical review including: 1. Procedures by which watershed assessments and prioritization of projects will be conducted. 2. Summary data on stock and current habitat status (productivity and capacity estimates of past and current conditions) to provide context for the slate of priority activities identified in the proposal. 3. The anticipated effects of habitat improvements on fish and wildlife populations; and the details of a monitoring program that facilitates adaptive learning. The habitat restoration efforts in the Columbia Cascade Province are well underway, and the YNFRM has played a significant role in improving salmon and steelhead habitat in this area. Implementation of the types of projects identified in the listed priority actions (pages 12-15) should benefit fish and wildlife, if they are implemented in the proper locations. However, at this time it is impossible to evaluate the scientific basis for habitat improvement, or estimate the potential benefit to fish and wildlife populations, until the planning work is complete, sites have been prioritized, and implementation and monitoring plans have been finalized. The ISRP recognizes that this step cannot be accomplished until the inventory and prioritization process is complete. This proposal is consistent with the ongoing planning and implementation process in this province, and it proposes to supplement funding for habitat inventory and restoration projects, which will enable hiring more people to do the actual work. In a region where there is much to do and limited resources to implement the subbasin and recovery plans, additional funding is warranted. However, insufficient detail was provided in the proposal to evaluate the technical adequacy of the protocols that will be employed to complete the inventory and planning activities. It would be helpful to the ISRP, as this project goes forward, to view outcomes from the planning and implementation of habitat actions in a subset of reaches that include different restoration actions. This does not have to be included in the formal response to our review. It might be possible to highlight the Accord MOA supported work in the context of a rolling provincial review. However, providing the ISRP with information on how the inventory, priority setting, and implementation efforts are progressing would help us understand the project and hopefully provide constructive feedback.