The proponent has described an important habitat restoration and steelhead monitoring effort in select tributaries of the Yakima subbasin. This project has evolved over time. In the 2010 eview, it is stated that "The primary objective is to correlate population performance and changes in population performance to habitat conditions or specified physical attributes (i.e., flow, temperature, wood densities, and habitat types) by integrating the project's biological data with the habitat data.” This effort to link habitat changes to population performance appears to have been eliminated in favor of more basic biomonitoring of steelhead and projects.

The proponent has done an admirable job of presenting past accomplishments and uses a science-based approach to moving forward with restoration actions. However, in future proposals and reports, we encourage the proponent to provide quantitative objectives, such as those shown in the Timeline table, that can be evaluated for successful implementation. The proposal would highly benefit by following the requested SMART Objective format, which will require restructuring existing information and some addition of new content. As is, the six objectives are more like goals. The specific project list could lend itself to framing of objectives. The proposal should reference specific actions described in the 2009 Steelhead Recovery Plan, and it should describe the percentage of the total actions that would be addressed during the upcoming contract. This information is needed to assess how much more restoration of each type is needed and for fuller understanding of the science-based merits of the proposal.

This project has potential significant benefits to steelhead, both from the perspective of the entire Yakima system and from the perspective of the Middle Columbia ESU. The main way this project determines success is an increase in the abundance and survival rate of salmonids, specifically steelhead. However, it is challenging to impossible to link actions being taken to encourage a steelhead response with the methods being employed. In fact, the juvenile steelhead abundance in the Toppenish watershed is declining. While this might be due to other issues such as ocean conditions, it is also possible that the ability of the project to take positive action is being subsumed by problems in the basin (some of which might be new). The proponent is encouraged to conduct a limiting-factors-type analysis to be sure they are doing the right projects in the right places.

While the proponents describe a project selection process (using various types of scores), does this in fact lead them to doing the right work in the right places (i.e., where the survival and production issues really are located)? Are the projects large enough to make a difference? To address this, the proponents are encouraged to do a new selection process and see if this leads to the same projects. It is important to anticipate future climate change, so the proponents can design restoration actions that will be resilient to changing environmental conditions. Another way to improve project selection is to do comprehensive basin-scale habitat assessments. This might lead to a different set of projects.

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 Yakima Basin Habitat (199705100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Yakima River basin. During the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021), 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 primary goal of the Yakama Reservation Watersheds Project is to restore steelhead populations in the Lower Yakima tributaries to harvestable numbers. The secondary goal is to restore the diverse aquatic and riparian communities that steelhead depend on. Numeric population objectives were reported in the 2009 Yakima Basin Steelhead Recovery plan, e.g., 3,250 fish for delisting, 4,500 fish for short-term recovery, and 16,600 fish for long-term recovery. According to the project report, adult steelhead counts at Prosser Dam peaked near 6,000 fish in 2010-2012 but have declined to about 1,000 fish in 2017-2019.

While the information about what is planned for restoration and monitoring over the next five years of the project is offered in various places and various forms, the clarity of the plan would be much enhanced by following the requested SMART Objective format. The proposal lists six objectives, which are goals rather than quantitative objectives that can be monitored and evaluated to determine whether the project is achieving success. These goals are highly worthwhile and stem from the detailed recovery plan, but they limit the ability to evaluate progress against quantitative objectives. For each SMART Objective (N=6 in the proposal) and each year of the project, the proponents should be explicit about what is to be implemented, how much is to be done (i.e., expected percent of the objective completed), and what is to be measured and quantified to assess outcome. Most of the information to include in these SMART Objectives already exists in the proposal. A seventh SMART Objective should be developed to cover documentation and reports (e.g., timing and content of annual report(s) to be produced).

Quantitative objectives are shown in the Project Timeline in Section 7 (called goals in the table). For example, in North Fork Logy Phase 3, install six-ten BDAs, half-channel spanning and full channel spanning; fell encroaching confers by 2023 (note: "BDA" was not defined in the proposal). These are the type of quantitative implementation objectives that can be evaluated in a review in about five years. Part of the implementation monitoring should evaluate the intended function of these habitat actions.

Generalized expected outcomes for each Objective are provided, but it is unclear if and how expected outcomes will be assessed. Specific metrics and methods need to be described. For example, what hydrologic function metrics are to be used and documented by year (OBJ-1)? Will changes in range and abundance of salmonids be reported on an annual basis (OBJ-2)? What metrics and trends for abundance, productivity, and survival of salmonids be quantified and reported each year (OBJ-3)? Will metrics for riparian cover and streambank stability be reported each year (OBJ-4)? Will metrics for response from the riparian community be quantified and reported each year (OBJ-5)? What habitat parameters will be measured to determine status and trends in habitat response (OBJ-6)?

Q2: Methods

Methods for prioritizing habitat restoration projects and for implementing them were described in sufficient detail. It is expected, however, that additional methods will need to be described once the proponent uses the SMART Objective format described above. Basin and river reach assessments were briefly described, but more detail could have been provided on how restoration activities are expected to alter habitats and if the changes observed were as expected.

Methods for monitoring steelhead spawner and smolt abundances and water temperature are described along with references to additional details. However, we note that the 2020 steelhead and water temperature monitoring report would have benefited by linking the fish and water temperature monitoring effort more closely to the habitat restoration effort. Furthermore, in addition to steelhead smolt counts and spawner counts, we encourage the proponents to estimate smolts per spawner and to plot this in relation to spawners as a means to evaluate density dependence. It was not clear if quality control assessments were being done, e.g., adjustment of redd survey counts by making many more passes to see what proportion of redds are being seen. While the biomonitoring methods are very focused on steelhead, are other methods being used for other species?

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Although reach assessments are performed, the extent to which restoration projects were properly implemented was not discussed. It is unclear if the number of various proposed restoration projects were successfully implemented as planned, as should have been mentioned in the quantitative objectives of previous proposals. No lessons learned are described.

While the thought process and data collection at the site level is part of the project selection and pre-planning stage of the projects, it appears that monitoring and evaluation after the restoration efforts are more generalized at the watershed level. The post-project sampling design should be robust enough to assess changes at the project level to promote learning and proper assignment to cause and effect. The proponents document a disturbing decrease in juvenile steelhead abundance in Toppenish Creek watershed (Appendix 1), but then they ascertain that the decrease is due to climatic and out-of-the-subbasin factors rather than a reflection of the success of their restoration efforts in the watershed. What does not appear to be assessed are metrics that capture meaningful changes in juvenile steelhead production at the project level in response to implemented changes.

The fish and temperature monitoring data collected by the YRWP project (flow, water temperature, and steelhead redd locations) are used when selecting, designing, and implementing restoration projects. This information is provided to contractors that prepare reach assessments. The proponents consider the basic information, especially discharge and temperature data, to be critical to planning and designing the restoration projects because they are the critical limiting factors that proponents aim to improve. Staff meet regularly to discuss project schedules, progress, and results. Projects are prioritized once per year.

This project does project-specific monitoring as well as large-scale (subbasin) monitoring of steelhead. The efforts include adequate monitoring of steelhead smolt and spawner abundances in Toppenish Creek, but total smolt estimates are problematic in the other two tributaries, according to the 2020 project report. Water temperature, which is a key limiting factor, is also monitored. The project is conducting a variety of actions where the main evaluation criteria is an increase in the abundance and survival rate of steelhead. For example, they propose to eliminate entrainment of smolts and passage barriers to adults at tributary irrigation diversions and other man-made barriers to increase the survival rate of smolts and improve access to spawning habitats. It was not clear how they propose to estimate survival. For example, is it reach scale, watershed, or subbasin scale? The expected result is an increase in the abundance and survival rate of salmonids, specifically steelhead within the system.

While the project clearly adjusts the restoration efforts, both selecting projects and implementing them, it is not clear if they have a process to adjust their projects based on biological monitoring results. Are there other protocols for salmon and non-salmonids, and if so, do they have results of non-steelhead monitoring? These data are important to understand what species are benefiting from the restoration efforts.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

In general, the suite of science-based and best available practices for restoration actions used to address documented limiting factors can be largely assumed to be beneficial to fish and wildlife. The proponents are encouraged to continue to use and develop meaningful metrics to help measure these benefits and directly assess success of project actions.

It is noteworthy that about 50% of the steelhead in the Yakima system occurs in the three target watersheds of this proposal. Appendix II provides a succinct table of habitat projects and accomplishments, 2012-2020. The 2017 status and trends report (Project 200900200) provides an excellent overview of accomplishments in the Yakima subbasin, but it is difficult to identify accomplishments directly linked to this project versus numerous other projects in the subbasin. A downward trend in steelhead spawner abundance and smolt production has been observed since 2010 as has also been observed across the Columbia Basin for most anadromous salmonid species—reportedly the result of multiple drought years and unfavorable ocean conditions.

Many types of data are being recorded, but not all data are being analyzed and synthesized. For example, the proponents should also estimate and report smolts-per-spawner, when possible; relate spawner counts in the tributaries to counts at Prosser Dam; present findings related to PIT-tag operations; and provide time series of stream temperatures for each year.

The sponsor provided reasonably detailed responses to each of our seven concerns. This material contains valuable supplemental information about the project.

The efforts made to better quantify both objectives and deliverables were helpful. Particularly important were the descriptions and before/after photo series of selected recent activities. The prioritization protocol was effectively described.

Reviewers found the explanation of timber harvest processes used by the Yakama Nation helpful. More details about the timeline for certification under the Sustainable Forest Initiative would have been welcomed but was not requested. Clarification was provided regarding the extent to which project streams are supplemented with hatchery origin fish. It was also noted that no projects are currently planned for fish habitat in and along the mainstem Yakima River near the three tributary confluences.

Evaluation of Results

The proposal contains a detailed description of past and ongoing efforts to restore and protect Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, and Ahtanum Creek, the three primary Yakima River tributaries on the Yakama Reservation. Work is laid out in a chronologic summary for each tributary, giving an account of the problem, the approach taken, and the activities completed to remedy the problem. There is a great deal of information included, and it shows considerable effort. Evaluation of results could be strengthened by including an account of the survival rates of the various vegetative plantings and including key metrics from the steelhead monitoring conducted by others.

This is a proposal that shows considerable effort, but improvement is needed in several important areas. A response is requested to address the following:

1) The objectives and deliverables are reasonable, but many should be quantified so that reviewers and the Council have a better idea of what may be accomplished. For example, how many historical channel networks will be restored during the project period (Objective 3, Deliverable 7), how many miles of fencing will be installed (Objective 4, Deliverable 11), how many stream banks will be stabilized (Objective 5, Deliverable 8), how many acres of headwater areas will be restored (Objective 5, Deliverable 9)?

2) This project has a long history and a long list of specific accomplishments was provided, but this information was not synthesized to provide a status update on the restoration effort in the three targeted watersheds. See further comment below. Please include a revised description of accomplishments for the past two years. Also, linkage to other BPA-funded projects was not described in sufficient detail to show that the projects complement rather than duplicate each other. Brief explanations are needed.

3) The proposal mentioned that timber harvests will occur during the next five years. The response should mention how these new timber harvests might adversely impact ongoing restoration activities. What mechanisms are in place to coordinate timber harvest and watershed activities?

4) Prioritization of the project's components is described as "From 2008-present, the pool of projects identified using the Yakima Basin Steelhead Recovery Plan as a guide, were selected for implementation based on a cost-benefit prioritization method which considers biotic, physical and cultural factors." This inadequate description can be rectified by providing details about the biotic, physical, and cultural criteria used in the cost-benefit methods, the source of information used for the criteria, and which group or groups assign priorities using this method.

5) The focus is on geomorphic restoration, but it is not evident that the staff has those skills, as yet. The response should address this issue and, if appropriate, identify solutions such as using consultants or staff from other projects.

6) The proposal did not describe whether the three tributaries in this proposal were being supplemented with hatchery fish. That should be made clear in the response.

7) The new work proposed to "extend the geographic scope of potential restoration work by taking advantage of the best opportunities to protect and restore fish habitat in and along the mainstem Yakima River near the three tributary confluences" is inadequately described and not justified by the proposal. Additional information is requested.

Additional comments and queries are given below as feedback for future efforts and do not need to be addressed in a response.

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

This project has a long history. The description of significance to regional programs is adequate. In the technical background section, the sponsors should have provided more detail on how they prioritized specific habitat projects.

The motivation for this project is to restore ESA-listed steelhead numbers. The proposal would have been stronger if it tied these more specifically and directly to steelhead. To what extent might steelhead productivity have increased in response to past restoration activities? How much more effort is needed to improve steelhead productivity to some measurable amount?

The six objectives, restore hydrologic function, improve passage, restore channels and floodplains, restore riparian communities, restore flow and water quality, and monitor, are reasonable, but quantitative benchmarks should be provided for objectives involving restoration. For example, how many historic channel networks will be restored during the project period (Objective 3, Deliverable 7), how many miles of fencing will be installed (Objective 4, Deliverable 11), how many stream banks will be stabilized (Objective 5, Deliverable 8), how many acres of headwater areas will be restored (Objective 5, Deliverable 9)?

Supplementation of natural salmonids with hatchery stocks is an important activity in the Yakima watershed. The proposal recognizes the need to recover degraded habitat so that natural stocks may become self-sustaining.

The description of the setting of the three streams was helpful but incomplete. Maps are needed. More importantly basic hydrologic information should be included. This is a serious deficiency for a hydrologic-based proposal. What are seasonal and historical flows?

Description of the three streams was weakened by use of general and vague assessments of the systems biological function. More detail and specifics are needed, especially justification of limiting factors.

The sponsors propose to "extend the geographic scope of potential restoration work by taking advantage of the best opportunities to protect and restore fish habitat in and along the mainstem Yakima River near the three tributary confluences. We would limit potential projects to the Yakima River where it forms the Yakama Reservation boundary from the mouth of Ahtanum Creek (mile 107) downstream to the town of Mabton (mile 60). We would focus on right-bank (Reservation-side) habitats that, if protected or restored at moderate cost, are likely to benefit steelhead under the current Yakima River flow regime, which is heavily modified for irrigation water storage and delivery, but could function even better with the mainstem flow restoration measures called for in the Subbasin Plan and Salmon Recovery Plan." This was included in the proposal but not emphasized, not mentioned in the introductory material, not featured as an objective, nor addressed during the site visit.

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

A long list of accomplishments was provided, but it was difficult to evaluate what these mean in terms of restoring habitat for steelhead and salmon in these tributaries and in the overall Yakima basin. The proposal states there have been improvements; it would be beneficial to provide some quantitative information to support these claims. There is no reason to doubt that, over the years, project staff has actively pursued a plethora of restoration actions. But the accomplishments section is not adequate to enable reviewers to assess the success of those results. That is important because they are the best predictor of potential project success. The much-too-lengthy section needs focus on key efforts, with before/after photos and maps. It needs to focus on (a) what was the problem, (b) what were the key indices of success, both physical habitat and hopefully fish, and both short- and long-term. For example if XX numbers of tree were planted then why were they being planted, what fraction survived, and was this successful in solving the problem?

Prioritization of projects components such as, "From 2008-present, the pool of projects identified using the Yakima Basin Steelhead Recovery Plan as a guide, were selected for implementation based on a cost-benefit prioritization method which considers biotic, physical and cultural factors," is inadequate and needs to be described in much more detail.

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

The introduction mentioned that timber harvests will occur during the next five years. The proposal should mention how these new timber harvests might impact ongoing restoration activities. Are appropriate actions such as riparian buffers being implemented to minimize impacts?

There was no mention of the YN management and database project (1988-120-25), which reportedly coordinates and manages all YN data.

It was not clear how this project integrates or overlaps with project 1995-063-25.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Specific deliverables were identified under each objective. As noted above, the quantitative deliverables should be identified whenever possible so that reviewers know what is targeted for accomplishment during the project period.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Links to MonitoringMethods.org were provided, but there was no detailed discussion of methods in the proposal. Reviewers of some of these methods, on the web page, noted that additional detail is needed. It would have been very useful to also link to a project report that provides detailed monitoring methods, given the long-term nature of this effort. The proposal does reference the use of some basic survey methodologies such as Timber Fish and Wildlife surveys.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:51:47 PM.

The ISRP has strongly supported the collection of the type of data that this study would collect: spawner abundance, smolt output, and smolt survival. Data on spawner abundance and smolt output is the foundation for evaluating any program for restoring salmon and steelhead populations. The information that this project could provide would be of great importance to fisheries and habitat managers in the Yakima basin. But the information provided in the proposal about objectives, methods, and work elements was insufficient to enable a technical review. The proposal needs to be better integrated with other regional programs, or at least the relationship of the project to other programs should be made clearer. The principal goal of the project should be clarified – are the improvements primarily needed to better establish steelhead status and trends, or to track the biological effectiveness of restoration actions taking place in the three streams? In either case more details are needed on how information from the steelhead monitoring work will be used to inform management plans. The project proponents also should provide a much more detailed description of project work elements, including a thorough description of the sampling and analytical methods that will be used to generate estimates of redd and smolt abundance. Finally, the budget portion of the proposal should be completed. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives There was insufficient information provided in the proposal on objectives and technical background. In fact, the title of the project and its objectives do not clearly match. From the title, the expectation was that objectives would focus on habitat restoration effectiveness monitoring. However, the proposal itself seeks funding to improve data collection on steelhead populations in three tributaries of the Yakima River that are located primarily on Yakama Nation lands. It was also unclear from the proposal whether the goal of improving the steelhead abundance and movement information in these tributaries was primarily to establish long-term trends in the Yakima steelhead MPG or to relate changes in steelhead abundance or movement patterns to habitat restoration actions. This project has been in place since 1996 and steelhead monitoring on the Yakama Nation Reservation has contributed to knowledge of the species in the Yakima basin as a whole. The proposal was reasonably thorough with regard to the technical background of the steelhead monitoring efforts in Toppenish, Satus, and part of Ahtanum Creeks. It did not give details about habitat restoration actions in these tributaries, nor did it explain how the steelhead monitoring work contributed to knowledge of other fish species of importance in the drainages. Objective 1 in the proposal was to restore steelhead in the mid-Columbia to harvestable levels, but no additional details were given. In effect, the proposal appeared to be limited to Objective 2, which was to monitor steelhead status and trends. Habitat improvements are not given as an objective; however, 54% of the work was apparently for restoration actions. More information on the restoration component of the project needs to be incorporated into the proposal. In fact, inclusion of this habitat restoration element in the proposal was surprising as the focus of this categorical review is on RME and artificial production rather than habitat restoration. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The history of the project is primarily communicated with a series of tables indicating redd counts, smolt counts, and budgets for this project over the last decade. A discussion of previous monitoring problems (including safety concerns) also was presented. A summary of any conclusions that have emerged from the steelhead studies would have been helpful. For example, have adult abundance estimates indicated any long-term trends in this part of the Yakima subbasin? Have there been shifts in age structure or downstream migration patterns in smolts during the monitoring period? Can the effects of habitat restoration projects be seen in any of the steelhead demographic data? The section on management changes (adaptive management) needed further detail. Little information is provided regarding how the sampling procedures have evolved through time or how the information collected by this study has been used to inform changes in sampling protocols or fisheries and habitat management decisions. The proposal needs to explain how management changes were implemented as a result of the steelhead monitoring studies. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) There was relatively little discussion of relationships with regional programs or other projects. Aside from explaining how the monitoring studies help in tracking the status and trends of steelhead in the Yakima MPG, the proposal provides relatively few details about how it is linked to habitat restoration projects, supplementation efforts, and work on other anadromous salmonid species in the area. Some mention was made about the application of models and methods for estimating redd abundance being developed by ISEMP in the upper Columbia. However, no description of these models and methods was provided. The Yakima VSP project also was mentioned several times as a potential source of information that could help achieve the objectives of this study. But the nature of the relationship between these two projects was not described. A list of the identified limiting factors and their perceived importance would have been helpful, as would a discussion of how an improved steelhead monitoring program would help resolve questions about restoration effectiveness. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods As was the case throughout this proposal, insufficient detail was provided to adequately judge the appropriateness of the work elements, methods, and deliverables. The terms “might be done” or “under consideration” were associated with many of work elements, suggesting the incompleteness of the project design. The “Types of Work” section of the proposal seemed a little misleading. Only 34% of the work elements are for RM&E; the balance is for habitat or planning and coordination. However, the two project deliverables are concerned with improving the steelhead abundance and outmigration data in the three tributaries, with emphasis on Toppenish and Satus Creeks. The budget section of the proposal was apparently not completed, as there are no budget figures given for each of the deliverables and budget detail is provided for only one year (2011).Therefore, there was no easy way of knowing how resources would be allocated within the project. In general, the work elements are not adequately described. Problems with access to the upper Toppenish watershed in early spring were to be addressed either by plowing roads or using snowmobiles or ATVs. No analysis of which option is likely to be most effective and least costly was provided. It would seem that a relatively complete analysis of this issue could have been generated using a road system map and data on snow levels during early spring. A preliminary plan of this sort also would enable a more realistic estimate of costs associated with this activity. Similarly, a list of potential smolt trap modifications was provided but there was no indication of which of these modifications was likely to be implemented. The proposal should contain specifics about what will be done, what it will accomplish and the cost. There also was insufficient detail provided for some of the methodologies to be employed in estimating redd and smolt counts. The redd count estimates apparently will attempt to apply models and methods developed by ISEMP for estimating redd abundance in the upper Columbia. These methods should be described in the proposal and data needs for the application of these tools clearly defined. The description of the mark-recapture methodology for estimating trap efficiency also was incomplete. Apparently, an attempt will be made to develop a relationship between flow and trap efficiency, but no method details for establishing this relationship were provided. There also are a number of other environmental conditions that can influence trap efficiency. A comparison of day and night efficiencies was mentioned in the proposal but, again, no details on how this comparison would be conducted were provided. Other factors that could influence efficiency other than flow level and time of day may be fish size and season. Presumably, the trap efficiency data will provide the necessary data to examine the effect of these factors on trap efficiency, but these analyses were not discussed in the proposal. The low smolt trap efficiencies also raise the possibility that alternative methods of enumerating smolts might be considered. For example is a PIT-tag array at the mouth of the study streams a possible option? Some specific details needed in the proposal include (1) the method for estimating the number of eggs in a steelhead redd, and assumptions about egg-to-fry survival rates, (2) additional information about Satus and Ahtanum Creeks – why trap capture efficiencies and redd count accuracy is low and what can be done to improve the data, (3) an explanation of why the anticipated number of PIT-tagged fish should be sufficient to address the questions being asked and (4) some additional evaluation of some of the logistical aspects of the project such as access for spring spawner surveys and smolt trap modifications.