In response to a May 23, 2021 request by Council and BPA’s Budget Oversight Group (BOG), the ISRP completed an expedited review of the project. The BOG request was made because the proponent requested an expansion of their restoration work in the Klickitat subbasin and into the Rock, Wind, and White Salmon subbasins. The existing Klickitat Watershed Enhancement project would be renamed the Yakama Southern Territories Habitat Project (STHP). To complete this review, the ISRP considered the original proposal; requested additional information from the proponents on several issues on July 7 via an email message; asked questions during the proponents’ presentation on July 21; and considered the proponent’s answers to our questions, received on August 26, 2021. The additional information was intended to help us reach a final recommendation on the project as to whether it meets scientific review criteria.

After the review of the initial proposal, the ISRP asked the proponents to address three specific questions:

1. Please provide more details about the proposed habitat restoration projects in the Klickitat (11 projects), White Salmon (2 projects), and Wind (1 project) subbasins. Please provide methods, expected outcomes, and monitoring actions for each project.
   
   
2. More details on project selection should be provided within the proposal. Are the right projects being done in the right places? How often are projects selected based on opportunity vs. strategy? Are projects being selected based upon future expected conditions due to climate change? What information is used to modify the selection process?
   
   
3. Waterflow is clearly a limiting factor in tributaries such as Rock Creek. While actions such as formation of pools can be used to improve conditions, is it possible to modify human land use activities (e.g., irrigation withdrawal) to increase flow during critical seasons? Furthermore, the proponents should better explain how the ongoing restoration actions are likely to improve stream habitat, such as stream flow, sedimentation, temperature, etc. 

The proponents provided 12 pages of text to address these questions and an additional 14 pages to address deficiencies noted in the sections below. The response to the first question provided the requested details on restoration approach, design, and monitoring. Descriptions of each of the restoration projects were provided. The response to the second question provided the requested detail on project selection and prioritization. The response to the third question helped explain the limitations on potential actions to improve water flow and temperature, and it described a series of passive and active restoration actions that have been taken and planned in the future.

Combined with the information in the original proposal, the responses to our questions help to complete the proposal and make it possible to judge that the proposal now meets scientific review criteria.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The overall goal of the Southern Territories Habitat Project is to restore watershed health and stream habitat to aid recovery of native salmonids in the tributary subbasins of the Yakama Nation’s Southern Territories. The proposal provides a series of biological goals to reach this overall goal along with six quantitative objectives for habitat restoration and monitoring. The restoration objectives are quantitative in that they identified the amount of habitat (by type) to be restored over the next five years. A Gantt timeline chart (design, planning, implementation) is provided for each restoration project plus monitoring and evaluation. Quantitative objectives for natural-origin Chinook salmon and steelhead and hatchery production were developed at the Major Population Group and Population level in collaboration with the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee and presented in task force’s Phase 2 Report, which was released in October 2020. 

In the original proposal, the proponents provided a clearly stated goal, and they provided Objectives that were generally well formulated. However, objectives needed to be improved to meet standards of the SMART Objective format so that the project could be readily evaluated for progress. Locations for activities were not declared for OBJs 1-4. It was not clear where the planned actions were to take place. The expected outcomes were not expressed in measurable terms. 

Furthermore, the proponents needed to add more information about restoration actions proposed for Rock Creek, including a full series of Implementation Objectives and Monitoring Objectives for each proposed habitat restoration project in Klickitat, White Salmon, and Wind watersheds. Expected outcomes in terms of stream miles treated and effect on stream processes and fish populations needed to be stated. It was not clear from the timeline when monitoring and evaluation activities (habitat surveys, population estimates, coho salmon redd counts, and steelhead redd counts) would be conducted. It was not clear if these activities were limited to Rock Creek, or if they were to be implemented in other watersheds (Klickitat, White Salmon, and Wind) as well. The specifics and relevancy of the monitoring needed to be described. 

With their subsequent response, the proponents addressed these deficiencies in a full and adequate manner. 

 

Q2: Methods

The proponent provided a reasonably detailed summary of methods used to examine fish populations in Rock Creek, including fish density in pools, tagging studies to evaluate survival and travel times, spawner surveys, and water quality monitoring. Insufficient detail was provided for how the actual restoration projects were to be conducted. Implementation and monitoring methods associated with Objectives 1-4 for specific restoration projects planned for FY2023-2028 in Klickitat, White Salmon, and Wind watersheds were not described. The proponent briefly noted that "On-the-ground habitat actions are implemented using best available science and include the suite of activities outlined in the Columbia River System Biological Opinion, Appendix a – Tributary Habitat Technical Foundation and Analytical Methods. For individual monitoring actions approaches are documented on monitoringmethods.org." In a separate section of the proposal, the proponents noted that habitat actions were documented with photographs. Stream pool habitat surveys were adequately described. However, the proponents did not describe how they were evaluating the effects of other actions to improve stream processes, such as stream flow, sedimentation, temperature, etc. In addition, there was little information provided on the project selection process.

With their subsequent response, the proponents addressed these deficiencies in an adequate manner.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

By expanding the geographic range covered by this proposal beyond the Klickitat River watershed boundaries to include the White Salmon River, Wind River, and Rock Creek watersheds, the proponents have shown a decisive attempt to enhance efficiency for approach and application of restoration actions. This change appears to be a reasonable and responsible change, but it will need to be revisited in the future to understand if there are realized benefits from this expanded range.

The proposal briefly summarized the adaptive/iterative management process, and it referenced the final EIS. The proposal noted one example of adaptive management involving the survival of various plant species by planting depth, plant source (cutting vs. containerized), and pruning treatment. Other examples could have been described or at least referenced in the proposal.

While the proponent described the significant amount of monitoring to be done in Rock Creek, it was challenging to determine if the right monitoring was being done in the right places. One suggestion was to include a summary of all relevant monitoring work, regardless of the project doing it.

For the most part, the monitoring was not explicitly linked to questions or hypotheses, so in some cases it was hard to determine what the monitoring was going to yield and how the information would be used. The ISRP was unable to determine whether the monitoring would be sufficient to answer questions.

With their subsequent response, the proponents addressed these deficiencies with an adequate amount of new information and descriptions.

Q4: Benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal provided a good summary of habitat restoration accomplishments over multiple years, and it provided a good summary of fish monitoring results in Rock Creek. Additionally, a technical report for Rock Creek was completed in 2020, and a report on the Klickitat watershed included the 2018 activities and findings. The project has been doing a lot of good restoration work for quite a few years.

It is noteworthy that the smolt-to-adult return rate for the 3,039 steelhead smolts tagged in Rock Creek in 2009-2012 ranged from 2.2 to 5.5%, which is within the target smolt-to-adult return rate for the Middle Columbia River DPS (2 to 6%), as noted in the proposal. Given the two-winter residence of many steelhead in the ocean, it is not clear why SAR data were not also provided in the proposal for fish tagged during 2016-2017.

With the strong monitoring effort in Rock Creek, the response and benefit to fish (steelhead, coho salmon, and bridgelip sucker) from the habitat restoration efforts in Rock Creek will be assessed as part of the project. The fish monitoring proposed is extensive and has a high likelihood of success for assessment of the fish response. However, in the other watersheds where restoration projects are proposed (Klickitat, White Salmon, and Wind), not enough information was provided by the proponent for the ISRP to understand what the potential benefits of project activities to fish and wildlife might be.

With their subsequent response, the proponents addressed these deficiencies and provided much new information, including four tables and three figures that included data on smolt-to-adult return rates and PIT tagging results for smolt emigration and adult returns.

 

The comments and questions in the sections below are intended to assist the sponsors in improving their project and the ISRP does not request a response to these.

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

The purpose of this project is to continue actions that improve watershed processes and fish habitat in the Klickitat River Subbasin, and as the proposal indicates, this project responds to goals and recommendations in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (2000), the Klickitat Subbasin Plan (2004), the USFWS 2005 Bull trout BiOp, and several other tribal and state plans.

Restoration efforts primarily include floodplain reconnection, road decommissioning, large wood placement, and riparian re-vegetation. The technical background of the project was adequately explained, although a little more information about the status and trends of focal species (spring Chinook, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout) would have been helpful in order to provide context for the project.

The four objectives are really stated as broad goals and need to be better defined. For example, Objective 1 "Protect ecological and geomorphic functions that are at present productive for fish and wildlife populations to provide a base for expansion." Which populations and how much expansion? Where? There are metrics following each objective, but they also are too general to be of much value unless they are refined. Examples of the metrics used are "Fish/habitat usage and Flow duration." These are incomplete metrics. In the following section of the proposal, Project Goals are listed for each restoration project. These could/should be put in the Objectives section they are really measurable/quantifiable objectives.

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

The proposal gave a detailed description of restoration efforts to date and the before-and-after photos were helpful. The project sponsors did not mention if continued maintenance of some of the enhancements have been needed, but perhaps the projects have not required maintenance (suggesting that they were well designed in the first place). A helpful addition would have been a discussion of the alternative activities considered for each project, and a description of why those other options were rejected.

Results in the proposal are nicely detailed for the habitat work, but here and in annual reports the results are just of implementation monitoring - no biological monitoring results. Information is needed on fish and other biological responses to restoration actions. For example, what is the evidence that salmon and steelhead have made use of the added length of streams resulting from barrier removal? Are juvenile fishes using floodplain habitats that have been opened up by road re-location? What are the sources of mortality of trees planted in riparian zones? In terms of adults returning to the Klickitat River and its tributaries, what is the evidence that restoration projects have contributed to focal species productivity?

The only specific example of adaptive management was mention of adjustments in plant sources and pruning treatments to improve survival. One or two other examples of how lessons from past projects have been incorporated into current plans would be useful.

Evaluation of Results

This is a fairly long running project with an extensive list of habitat restoration projects. Since earlier ISRP reviews, which requested more details regarding the selection and prioritization process, the KWEP has improved the proposals with more details on project selection and functions they are seeking to rehabilitate. The annual reports have also significantly improved.

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

Relationships with most other projects are very generally stated and the sponsors did not describe how the information generated by those interacting projects was used. The sponsors did mention that they had close interactions with their M&E project #199506325 but gave no basic summary results from that project.

Limiting factor analysis has been conducted using both EDT (for summer steelhead and spring Chinook) and expert opinion. This is commendable, but a specific presentation of just how this analysis has been applied to specific life stages of a species is missing. Much more detail is needed.

Emerging Limiting Factors - The sponsors only provide a simple list of limiting factors with no discussion of how they will specifically respond to these.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and work elements were, in general, adequately described. It was not clear whether heavy equipment will be used to change stream morphology from a plane bed to forced pool-riffle morphology (DELV-1). A couple of the actions included "maintain/remove vegetation," which suggests that invasive species control will be used. A little more detail is needed on this aspect of the work. Some of the large wood additions involved placing the logs by helicopters. Does this mean that the logs will simply be placed in the channel or along the stream-bank, or will they be anchored by cabling or burial? Some information was provided during the site visit, but a few more restoration details are needed.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

These two issues can be dealt with in contracting, statement of works, and preparation of papers.

 

In order to continue to justify the investment in restoration actions, there needs to be a more explicit tie between these projects and fish responses. It is ok if another project does the biological monitoring to determine if the habitat restoration work is having a positive impact on fish, macroinvertebrate, and wildlife populations. It appears that companion project #199506325 is doing such monitoring. A brief summary of their pertinent findings should be included in the proposal or an explanation of how the results from the fish monitoring work is being incorporated into this watershed enhancement project.

The ISRP is impressed with the accomplishments of this extensive restoration project and recommends that the sponsors pursue publication of the long-term results of their efforts.

The comments and questions in the sections below are intended to assist the sponsors in improving their project and the ISRP does not request a response to these.

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

The purpose of this project is to continue actions that improve watershed processes and fish habitat in the Klickitat River Subbasin, and as the proposal indicates, this project responds to goals and recommendations in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (2000), the Klickitat Subbasin Plan (2004), the USFWS 2005 Bull trout BiOp, and several other tribal and state plans.

Restoration efforts primarily include floodplain reconnection, road decommissioning, large wood placement, and riparian re-vegetation. The technical background of the project was adequately explained, although a little more information about the status and trends of focal species (spring Chinook, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout) would have been helpful in order to provide context for the project.

The four objectives are really stated as broad goals and need to be better defined. For example, Objective 1 "Protect ecological and geomorphic functions that are at present productive for fish and wildlife populations to provide a base for expansion." Which populations and how much expansion? Where? There are metrics following each objective, but they also are too general to be of much value unless they are refined. Examples of the metrics used are "Fish/habitat usage and Flow duration." These are incomplete metrics. In the following section of the proposal, Project Goals are listed for each restoration project. These could/should be put in the Objectives section they are really measurable/quantifiable objectives.

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

The proposal gave a detailed description of restoration efforts to date and the before-and-after photos were helpful. The project sponsors did not mention if continued maintenance of some of the enhancements have been needed, but perhaps the projects have not required maintenance (suggesting that they were well designed in the first place). A helpful addition would have been a discussion of the alternative activities considered for each project, and a description of why those other options were rejected.

Results in the proposal are nicely detailed for the habitat work, but here and in annual reports the results are just of implementation monitoring - no biological monitoring results. Information is needed on fish and other biological responses to restoration actions. For example, what is the evidence that salmon and steelhead have made use of the added length of streams resulting from barrier removal? Are juvenile fishes using floodplain habitats that have been opened up by road re-location? What are the sources of mortality of trees planted in riparian zones? In terms of adults returning to the Klickitat River and its tributaries, what is the evidence that restoration projects have contributed to focal species productivity?

The only specific example of adaptive management was mention of adjustments in plant sources and pruning treatments to improve survival. One or two other examples of how lessons from past projects have been incorporated into current plans would be useful.

Evaluation of Results

This is a fairly long running project with an extensive list of habitat restoration projects. Since earlier ISRP reviews, which requested more details regarding the selection and prioritization process, the KWEP has improved the proposals with more details on project selection and functions they are seeking to rehabilitate. The annual reports have also significantly improved.

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

Relationships with most other projects are very generally stated and the sponsors did not describe how the information generated by those interacting projects was used. The sponsors did mention that they had close interactions with their M&E project #199506325 but gave no basic summary results from that project.

Limiting factor analysis has been conducted using both EDT (for summer steelhead and spring Chinook) and expert opinion. This is commendable, but a specific presentation of just how this analysis has been applied to specific life stages of a species is missing. Much more detail is needed.

Emerging Limiting Factors - The sponsors only provide a simple list of limiting factors with no discussion of how they will specifically respond to these.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and work elements were, in general, adequately described. It was not clear whether heavy equipment will be used to change stream morphology from a plane bed to forced pool-riffle morphology (DELV-1). A couple of the actions included "maintain/remove vegetation," which suggests that invasive species control will be used. A little more detail is needed on this aspect of the work. Some of the large wood additions involved placing the logs by helicopters. Does this mean that the logs will simply be placed in the channel or along the stream-bank, or will they be anchored by cabling or burial? Some information was provided during the site visit, but a few more restoration details are needed.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

These two issues can be dealt with in contracting, statement of works, and preparation of papers.

 

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:14:39 PM.

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

This project proposes to continue an ongoing effort to collect and analyze salmonid population and habitat data on Rock Creek for the ultimate purpose of identifying habitat restoration projects that would be most beneficial to the fish. The Rock Creek watershed appears to be an appropriate location for such an effort. The proposal indicates that this population is a focus of recovery efforts for the Mid-Columbia ESU.

The four objectives for this project are:

(OBJ-1) Understand the current habitat conditions

(OBJ-2) Protect and conserve existing good quality habitat and expand upon these focal areas

(OBJ-3) Identify protection/restoration sites and actions

(OBJ-4) Restore and enhance habitat

The general approach being taken is consistent with the guidance provided by the ISRP for years: identify restoration actions based on a thorough understanding of how the focal species are using the watershed. The technical background on the project activity to date was sufficient to illustrate what has been accomplished. However, key elements of the watershed assessment have yet to be completed (geomorphic assessment and juvenile fish assessment reports due in 2014). It appears that these reports will form the basis of a new EDT analysis that will be used to identify project locations and limiting factors. An evaluation of the technical adequacy of the process that will be used for project identification would require that these reports be included in the proposal. Therefore, Objectives 1 and 2 are justified in the proposal. However, the adequacy of the process that will be used to identify priority restoration sites (Objective 3) cannot be assessed with the information provided in the proposal. As a result, Objective 4 is not appropriate at this time.

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

The history and past accomplishments of this project are described briefly in the proposal. However, it appears that relatively little rigorous analysis of the fish or habitat data that have been collected to date has been completed. The discussion of results is similar in scope to that examined in the previous ISRP review (spring 2012) and is only slightly improved in terms of providing a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The proposal mostly contains a description of the types of data being collected and provides examples of some of these data including number of spawners and index of juvenile density. Additionally, the location of stream reaches that experience significant dewatering should be displayed. Also, it would be useful to know if the presence of non-native fishes in lower Rock Creek has had any effect on the survival of juvenile steelhead as they emigrate from the watershed. It seems that the reports due in 2014 on channel geomorphology and salmonid fishes will include detailed analyses of the data. The ISRP would require these reports and a description of the process to be used to identify priority projects in order to fully evaluate this proposal.

There is no explicit description of an adaptive management process associated with this project. However, there is a clear indication of an intention to use adaptive management principles as a foundation of the restoration process. Data being collected is intended to be used to identify high-priority projects. It appears that EDT will be the tool used to achieve this goal. Development of a more formal adaptive management process for this project could help ensure that the data being collected are used to fullest advantage.

Evaluation of data collected by this project to date was not provided in this proposal. The reports planned for release in 2014 should contain a thorough data analysis and a discussion of the implications for habitat restoration.

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

The proposal provides only a very high-level description of the relationships between this project and other habitat RME and habitat restoration projects in the Columbia Basin. They apparently are using some sampling protocols developed through the CHaMP and PNAMP processes. But the actual relationship between this project and the large habitat RME efforts in the basin, like CHaMP and ISEMP, is not described. It would seem that considerable leverage could be gained by aligning the sampling protocols being used in this study with efforts attempting to achieve similar objectives. The data management system described for this project in the proposal also might benefit by closer association with the large RME programs, which have developed very sophisticated data management systems.

The proposal generically identifies limiting factors for the Rock Creek watershed, but it also indicates that site-specific limiting factors can only be reliably identified once data collection and analysis is complete. This approach is technically sound. Water temperature is identified as a limiting factor in the proposal, and the work has also included pathogen sampling, although results of that sampling are not presented here. Is there any possibility that high temperatures have exacerbated disease or parasite problems in Rock Creek? The proposal does not address any of the key emerging limiting factors such as climate change, invasive species, or future development of the watershed. A careful assessment of how these things may affect restoration actions should be incorporated into the process being developed to identify priority restoration actions.

This project uses PIT tags and two instream PIT tag readers to assess juvenile steelhead movement, smolt production, and adult returns. The proposal clearly explains why PIT tags are the best choice for application in this project. However, it is not clear if an adequate number of fish have been PIT-tagged to get sufficient recoveries to make generalizations about fish movements.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables, work elements, and metrics associated with the collection of fish and habitat data for Rock Creek appear to be appropriate for project objectives. However, there was little description of how these data are being analyzed (other than that EDT is being used); some additional information on this point would have helped assess the technical merit of the analysis methods being used. Presumably, these items will be addressed through the reports planned for completion in 2014. It was stated that genetic analysis of steelhead is being discontinued. No information was provided in the proposal on how the information from this part of the study will be used to help inform habitat restoration priorities.

There is insufficient information provided to determine if the methods that will be used to identify the most effective restoration projects are scientifically sound. The use of EDT to examine these data is a reasonable approach. However, until the reports on system geomorphology and fish populations are completed in 2014, it is not possible to assess whether or not these data will be sufficient to accurately parameterize the EDT process. In addition, it would be wise to use EDT in conjunction with a second analytical approach. Consistent outcomes from the two approaches would add considerable assurance that the most significant projects are being correctly identified.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal was adequately cross-referenced with respect to the MonitoringMethods.org protocols.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The elements of this project related to data collection generally meet scientific criteria. However, proposal elements related to the identification and execution of habitat restoration actions are not adequately justified from a scientific standpoint. It is not possible to assess the technical merit of the project identification process until the geomorphology and salmonid population assessments are completed in 2014. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing these reports and the process to be used to identify priority projects. The ISRP should review the reports and the prioritization process as a package rather than individually.

Geomorphology and fish population reports should be reviewed by the ISRP when they become available.

The strategy for incorporating these data into the restoration prioritization process needs to be clearly described.

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

This project proposes to continue an ongoing effort to collect and analyze salmonid population and habitat data on Rock Creek for the ultimate purpose of identifying habitat restoration projects that would be most beneficial to the fish. The Rock Creek watershed appears to be an appropriate location for such an effort. The proposal indicates that this population is a focus of recovery efforts for the Mid-Columbia ESU.

The four objectives for this project are:

(OBJ-1) Understand the current habitat conditions

(OBJ-2) Protect and conserve existing good quality habitat and expand upon these focal areas

(OBJ-3) Identify protection/restoration sites and actions

(OBJ-4) Restore and enhance habitat

The general approach being taken is consistent with the guidance provided by the ISRP for years: identify restoration actions based on a thorough understanding of how the focal species are using the watershed. The technical background on the project activity to date was sufficient to illustrate what has been accomplished. However, key elements of the watershed assessment have yet to be completed (geomorphic assessment and juvenile fish assessment reports due in 2014). It appears that these reports will form the basis of a new EDT analysis that will be used to identify project locations and limiting factors. An evaluation of the technical adequacy of the process that will be used for project identification would require that these reports be included in the proposal. Therefore, Objectives 1 and 2 are justified in the proposal. However, the adequacy of the process that will be used to identify priority restoration sites (Objective 3) cannot be assessed with the information provided in the proposal. As a result, Objective 4 is not appropriate at this time.

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

The history and past accomplishments of this project are described briefly in the proposal. However, it appears that relatively little rigorous analysis of the fish or habitat data that have been collected to date has been completed. The discussion of results is similar in scope to that examined in the previous ISRP review (spring 2012) and is only slightly improved in terms of providing a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The proposal mostly contains a description of the types of data being collected and provides examples of some of these data including number of spawners and index of juvenile density. Additionally, the location of stream reaches that experience significant dewatering should be displayed. Also, it would be useful to know if the presence of non-native fishes in lower Rock Creek has had any effect on the survival of juvenile steelhead as they emigrate from the watershed. It seems that the reports due in 2014 on channel geomorphology and salmonid fishes will include detailed analyses of the data. The ISRP would require these reports and a description of the process to be used to identify priority projects in order to fully evaluate this proposal.

There is no explicit description of an adaptive management process associated with this project. However, there is a clear indication of an intention to use adaptive management principles as a foundation of the restoration process. Data being collected is intended to be used to identify high-priority projects. It appears that EDT will be the tool used to achieve this goal. Development of a more formal adaptive management process for this project could help ensure that the data being collected are used to fullest advantage.

Evaluation of data collected by this project to date was not provided in this proposal. The reports planned for release in 2014 should contain a thorough data analysis and a discussion of the implications for habitat restoration.

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

The proposal provides only a very high-level description of the relationships between this project and other habitat RME and habitat restoration projects in the Columbia Basin. They apparently are using some sampling protocols developed through the CHaMP and PNAMP processes. But the actual relationship between this project and the large habitat RME efforts in the basin, like CHaMP and ISEMP, is not described. It would seem that considerable leverage could be gained by aligning the sampling protocols being used in this study with efforts attempting to achieve similar objectives. The data management system described for this project in the proposal also might benefit by closer association with the large RME programs, which have developed very sophisticated data management systems.

The proposal generically identifies limiting factors for the Rock Creek watershed, but it also indicates that site-specific limiting factors can only be reliably identified once data collection and analysis is complete. This approach is technically sound. Water temperature is identified as a limiting factor in the proposal, and the work has also included pathogen sampling, although results of that sampling are not presented here. Is there any possibility that high temperatures have exacerbated disease or parasite problems in Rock Creek? The proposal does not address any of the key emerging limiting factors such as climate change, invasive species, or future development of the watershed. A careful assessment of how these things may affect restoration actions should be incorporated into the process being developed to identify priority restoration actions.

This project uses PIT tags and two instream PIT tag readers to assess juvenile steelhead movement, smolt production, and adult returns. The proposal clearly explains why PIT tags are the best choice for application in this project. However, it is not clear if an adequate number of fish have been PIT-tagged to get sufficient recoveries to make generalizations about fish movements.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables, work elements, and metrics associated with the collection of fish and habitat data for Rock Creek appear to be appropriate for project objectives. However, there was little description of how these data are being analyzed (other than that EDT is being used); some additional information on this point would have helped assess the technical merit of the analysis methods being used. Presumably, these items will be addressed through the reports planned for completion in 2014. It was stated that genetic analysis of steelhead is being discontinued. No information was provided in the proposal on how the information from this part of the study will be used to help inform habitat restoration priorities.

There is insufficient information provided to determine if the methods that will be used to identify the most effective restoration projects are scientifically sound. The use of EDT to examine these data is a reasonable approach. However, until the reports on system geomorphology and fish populations are completed in 2014, it is not possible to assess whether or not these data will be sufficient to accurately parameterize the EDT process. In addition, it would be wise to use EDT in conjunction with a second analytical approach. Consistent outcomes from the two approaches would add considerable assurance that the most significant projects are being correctly identified.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal was adequately cross-referenced with respect to the MonitoringMethods.org protocols.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The elements of this project related to data collection generally meet scientific criteria. However, proposal elements related to the identification and execution of habitat restoration actions are not adequately justified from a scientific standpoint. It is not possible to assess the technical merit of the project identification process until the geomorphology and salmonid population assessments are completed in 2014. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing these reports and the process to be used to identify priority projects. The ISRP should review the reports and the prioritization process as a package rather than individually.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:29:46 PM.

There are not enough details in the project to conduct a scientific evaluation. This project likely needs more time than is available in the response loop to adequately develop this project for a meaningful ISRP review. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a proposal when it is fully developed. As mentioned below, a few parts of this might be supportable if better justified.

A labeled map and a description of land ownership in project areas are both badly needed.

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

The issue/problem statement is not well developed, and as a result, there is no clear overall goal. How the entire project relates to the region as a whole is unclear.

A few Chinook have been noted to spawn in the lower end. Steelhead are the only species of interest (The presentation reported 143 Steelhead redds). Again, the background and goals are described as though the completed work was never done.

The merits of the seven specific objectives are in question as well their status and the need for the work to be done. One objective (#4 to assess juvenile abundance and distribution) appears warranted if clearly defined. The other six are either already completed, at least to an adequate extent, or inappropriate.

Obj. 1 steelhead genetics - see completed report in Annual Report. Several more years of 50 fish samples are “needed.”

Obj. 2 assess habitat conditions and limiting factors - Proponents need to justify and clarify the need for additional data based on what has already analyzed. The discussion in the Annual Report was insufficient.

Obj. 3 assess lamprey use - never justified or explained to reviewers.

Obj. 5 survey fish pathogens - completed, see page 15 in Annual Report. “The Rock Creek fish health report indicates the mainstem Rock Creek fish samples were in good health and no pathogens were detected.”

Obj. 6 kelt movement - not explained or justified.

Obj. 7 identify project sites (probably okay if adequately justified) and also plant trees (also okay if not just feeding beavers).

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

For some reason this is identified as a new project as it indicates there are no past accomplishments. Yet the financial summary indicates $330K has already been spent, much of that Accord funds. Some of the funding went to “install two PIT-tag multiplex units in Rock Creek and subcontracted to USGS. Not all of the funding was spent to the end of the contract because there was limited time. The remainder of the FY2008 budget was carried over to the FY2011 budget. Then in FY2009 the Rock Creek Project started a two-year contract which is planned to end on May 31, 2011. We have a large subcontract with USGS to assist with the population surveys in Rock Creek as well as analyze the PIT-tag data.” This tangled web was confusing to reviewers.

An annual report has been filed for the period Dec 2007 through May 2009. However, for some reason that is quite disconcerting, those results are totally ignored in the current proposal.
So, regardless, there have been lots of data gathered. And there are PIT tag units and a USGS population survey subcontract apparently in place.

The project development, history, and most importantly its current status is in question.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

There is little information regarding how this project relates to other projects in the region.

The fact that there are substantial numbers of channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleyes, perch and other non-natives is a clear problem, and to the reviewers, puts the value of the entire project in question.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

All of these are inadequately detailed.

There are not enough details in the project to conduct a scientific evaluation. This project likely needs more time than is available in the response loop to adequately develop this project for a meaningful ISRP review. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a proposal when it is fully developed. As mentioned below, a few parts of this might be supportable if better justified. A labeled map and a description of land ownership in project areas are both badly needed. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The issue/problem statement is not well developed, and as a result, there is no clear overall goal. How the entire project relates to the region as a whole is unclear. A few Chinook have been noted to spawn in the lower end. Steelhead are the only species of interest (The presentation reported 143 Steelhead redds). Again, the background and goals are described as though the completed work was never done. The merits of the seven specific objectives are in question as well their status and the need for the work to be done. One objective (#4 to assess juvenile abundance and distribution) appears warranted if clearly defined. The other six are either already completed, at least to an adequate extent, or inappropriate. Obj. 1 steelhead genetics - see completed report in Annual Report. Several more years of 50 fish samples are “needed.” Obj. 2 assess habitat conditions and limiting factors - Proponents need to justify and clarify the need for additional data based on what has already analyzed. The discussion in the Annual Report was insufficient. Obj. 3 assess lamprey use - never justified or explained to reviewers. Obj. 5 survey fish pathogens - completed, see page 15 in Annual Report. “The Rock Creek fish health report indicates the mainstem Rock Creek fish samples were in good health and no pathogens were detected.” Obj. 6 kelt movement - not explained or justified. Obj. 7 identify project sites (probably okay if adequately justified) and also plant trees (also okay if not just feeding beavers). 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management For some reason this is identified as a new project as it indicates there are no past accomplishments. Yet the financial summary indicates $330K has already been spent, much of that Accord funds. Some of the funding went to “install two PIT-tag multiplex units in Rock Creek and subcontracted to USGS. Not all of the funding was spent to the end of the contract because there was limited time. The remainder of the FY2008 budget was carried over to the FY2011 budget. Then in FY2009 the Rock Creek Project started a two-year contract which is planned to end on May 31, 2011. We have a large subcontract with USGS to assist with the population surveys in Rock Creek as well as analyze the PIT-tag data.” This tangled web was confusing to reviewers. An annual report has been filed for the period Dec 2007 through May 2009. However, for some reason that is quite disconcerting, those results are totally ignored in the current proposal. So, regardless, there have been lots of data gathered. And there are PIT tag units and a USGS population survey subcontract apparently in place. The project development, history, and most importantly its current status is in question. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) There is little information regarding how this project relates to other projects in the region. The fact that there are substantial numbers of channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleyes, perch and other non-natives is a clear problem, and to the reviewers, puts the value of the entire project in question. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods All of these are inadequately detailed.

The response was comprehensive and helpful, answering ISRP concerns. At issue was the listing of results, for which there was apparently insufficient space allowed on the application, according to the proponent. Overall, the response provided adequate example and detail regarding the manner in which survey data is being used to prioritize and design habitat actions based upon knowledge of fish limiting factors. In the response, the project sponsors also noted that they stand ready to provide additional necessary information and to discuss its justification and pertinence with the ISRP. This project, important to the Klickitat subbasin plan, should provide these results in subsequent proposals and annual reports.

The proposal has many objectives and it is expected that this ambitious project should generate much information that would be useful to others in the region. However, there is a need to prioritize among the objectives and work in a logical sequence that allows planning and funding to proceed in stages. The ISRP recommends that objectives that relate to obtaining access, assessing fish population abundance and productivity, and assessing habitat be supported. Specifically work elements presented below should be conducted if the sponsors can justify how this information will be used. The ISRP suggests using flow charts or similar methods to identify how contingencies will be addressed based on the baseline data.

Fundable work elements:
1.1.1 Collect field data and develop RM&E methods and designs. Derive estimates of salmonid population abundance in select reaches of Rock Creek. (USGS, YN)
1.1.2 Collect field data. Determine fish species composition and distribution within the watershed. (USGS, YN)
1.1.7 Determine adult counts (YN)
1.1.8 Monitor juvenile and resident fish. Conduct redd counts and spawner surveys. (YN)
2.1.1 Conduct stream habitat monitoring. (YN)
2.1.2 Sample spawning gravel/sediment.
2.1.3 Monitor stream temperature and water quality.
2.1.3 (second) Monitor stream flow.

Justification for sample sizes, whether they are sites, reaches, or fish, should be specified. Monitoring and evaluation should be described in more detail to ensure that success of the project can be effectively evaluated. Strategies for sharing information were clearly identified in the response.

Not-fundable elements: The PIT tagging work is not justified in the response. There seem to be no special circumstances or hypotheses identified here that could only be answered or addressed by PIT tag results.