The revision demonstrates progress and moves toward what is needed in an adequate proposal. The reality, however, is that none of the requested items were fully covered.

Two capstone concerns were not sufficiently addressed in the response. They should be addressed in a summary report reviewed by the ISRP and incorporated into future proposals:

1) Objectives are not quantitative and lack defined endpoints

2) Proposed actions are likely to be beneficial, but the revised proposal still fails to demonstrate why these actions have been chosen, or that they have been selected methodically from a prioritized inventory of potential actions

The bulk of the material added is how CHaMP monitoring will be incorporated into Yankee Fork efforts, and that is fine as far as rounding out details for Objective 2. The information provided for Objective 1 is not specific enough for scientific evaluation. Additional information needs to be provided to establish the sponsor’s rationale for selection of individual restoration actions and for retrospective evaluation of results for tasks under Objective 1.

Objectives: Objective 1 and its components are much too general and do not provide quantifiable objectives and clearly stated end points. The proposal states that methods are not available to estimate (quantify) habitat status and fish population response to restoration actions. In absolute terms this gap reflects the current state of the science. Nonetheless, the BiOp RPA table 5 and draft recovery plan establish gains that are needed in habitat conditions and salmon survival. The table and plan could serve as a basis for prioritizing restoration actions and provide benchmarks for evaluation and adaptive management. Quantifiable objectives are required for scientific evaluation of prioritization and project results.

Prioritization: the first several pages of material under the Large Habitat Programs section include enough detail to be considered a basic plan. Appendix B is a list of Priority 1 streams from the SHIPPUS but does not identify what that means – are these top priority for restoration, for preservation, or those that will yield the best result per unit effort? Additional development of prioritization decisions that link limiting factors, restoration strategies, and salmon recovery objectives is needed for the current suite of actions in the deliverables and for work after the close of the accord project in 2018.

Deliverables: Explanation of the now 10 deliverables is improved, but there still is inadequate detail for evaluation.

The original deliverable 1 that was too vague has been split into 6 deliverables that are more specific. Three of the new deliverables explicitly refer to Panther Creek (which had not been mentioned in the earlier proposal).

The original Deliverable 2 has been split into 4 deliverables, all concerning Yankee Fork. No explanation is given for the budget requirement for these deliverables or for their relationship to activities proposed/funded through proposal 2002-059-00. These deliverables account for $823K (55% of the proposal total budget), and $447K (54%) of that amount is identified under “Other” as subcontracts for work on Yankee Fork. An explanation for this subcontracting work had been requested. Nonetheless, since the ISRP reviewed these deliverables under proposal 2002-059-00 no further details are requested of 2008-903-00 in the 2015 report.

The ISRP requests revision of proposal sections to address the questions posed below. An introductory document summarizing the revisions would be helpful for final review.

The ISRP reviewed project 2008-903-00 twice in 2010 (ISRP 2010-25 and ISRP 2010-39). In the initial review the ISRP requested a response and in the second review the ISRP provided a Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) recommendation (see http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isrp/isrp2010-39/). In the ISRP 2010-39 review, the ISRP stated:

“Much effort was expended to incorporate reviewer comments and the revised proposal addresses most of the ISRP’s initial concerns. However, details describing how the restoration actions would address specific limiting factors at each of the seven priority sites, and quantitative projections of the benefits of the actions on target species (see Table 6) are still somewhat incomplete. Simply making statements like "rearing capacity will be increased" and "temperature will be lowered" is not adequate.

Qualification: Regarding Objectives 1 and 2 to inventory and assess potential actions, the ISRP recommends that the proposers incorporate a comparison of costs to the projected benefits to fish for the actions to assist in priority setting. This would supplement the useful summary of anticipated benefits in Table 5, while assuring that habitat improvements are likely to be cost-effective. The ISRP can look at the finalized priority list and supporting analysis in future project reviews, likely as a component of a Salmon River subbasin geographic review.”

At this time the ISRP concludes that proposal 2008-903-00, needs revision that addresses the 2010-39 ISRP review and provides the necessary information for a scientific evaluation. There needs to be objectives with clearly stated end points so that accomplishments can be evaluated. Benefits to both habitat conditions and fish survival need to be included.

The project is proposing restoration actions in Panther Creek, Yankee Fork, Lemhi River, and Upper Salmon tributary watersheds. At this time priorities for individual actions in specific reaches of watersheds to address limiting factors with the goal of improving life-stage survival of spring/summer Chinook and steelhead have yet to be developed. The proposal includes actions in deliverable 1 to develop inventories of actions; assessment of potential and effectiveness of inventoried actions; and assessment of the feasibility of implementing selected actions. Explanation of these tasks for Deliverable 1 suggests that methods for completing these are yet to be finalized. The ISRP is confused by the need for these planning efforts since the proposal problem statement includes information on focal species status, numbers of diversions, and numbers of culverts in the primary restoration watersheds. It is not evident to the ISRP what additional assessment is required and why existing methods of establishing reach and site actions are not adequate.

The proposal budget has substantial commitment to Facilities/Equipment and subcontracts for work in the Yankee Fork. It is not clear to the ISRP how these budget items accomplish the planning proposed in Deliverable 1.

The proposal should establish priorities for watersheds based on BiOp recovery requirements, tribal preferences, and likelihood of success. The sponsor needs to develop a strategy for spatial restoration treatments that can be justified based on anticipated survival benefits to salmon.

The ISRP should review a comprehensive proposal once the inventory and prioritization and RM&E plan have been completed.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The discussion of the SHIPUSS, Upper Salmon Subbasin Screening and Habitat Improvement Prioritization, states that a list of Priority 1 streams is given in Appendix B. There does not appear to be an appendix associated with the proposal.

Including the RPA 35 Table 5 information relevant to the streams to be enhanced by ESA-HR, as well as the SHIPUSS information needs to be incorporated into the proposal. There needs to be direct indication of how the activities proposed contribute to the benefits needed under the BiOp and Recovery Plans.

The Discussion of the consistency of the proposal with the Fish and Wildlife Program, Subbasin Plan, and other regional programs is well done.

The TAURUS proposal form states that the project contributes to fulfilling the Action Agencies BiOp obligations for RPA 34. RPA 34 directed the Action Agencies to implement project during the 2007-2009 period. RPA 34 also provides specific instructions for developing alternative actions if the primary actions prove infeasible. This proposal needs to include a succinct statement on how integration of ESA-HR with the RPA was accomplished, how much work was completed, and whether primary actions proved infeasible.

The sponsors should look at the RPA statements linked to the TAURUS form and provide brief statements of how the project processes and implementation followed the RPA guidelines.

Technical Background: The discussion of specific independent populations of steelhead and spring Chinook salmon and the recovery and risk scores from the TRT assessment and draft recovery plan is welcome. A similar summary for habitat restoration is needed. The text describing the limiting factors does not provide enough detail for the ISRP to evaluate whether the proposal work elements and tasks will achieve the habitat improvement required by RPA 35.

The proposal states: “The UPS watershed includes 2,585 points of water diversion, and the MSP watershed includes 2,250. The UPS watershed includes 216 culverts at road crossings, at least 82 of which do not allow passage of juvenile fish, and at least 42 of which do not allow passage of adults. Ninety five culverts are present in the MSP watershed, of which at least 51 do not allow passage of juvenile fish and at least 44 do not allow passage of adult fish. The UPS watershed has been identified as having excess sedimentation and warm stream temperatures due to grazing impacts. Twelve percent of the streams in the UPS watershed are considered sediment impaired, compared to only 1.5% in the MSP watershed.”

The proposal’s technical background needs to provide an indication of how many of these anthropogenic hazards need to be fixed for recovery or restoration, how many are going to be addressed by this and other programs in the Salmon River, and an estimate of the anticipated biological benefits from the proposed work.

The description of limiting factors is too brief, and the proposal is not specific enough about how they are being addressed. Also, the background indicates that a primary source of habitat impairment is from recreation, agriculture, mining, and forestry. Actions in the proposal appear to address symptoms in the streams, rather than addressing land-use patterns that are leading to the impaired symptoms.

Objectives: There are two objectives: 1) Improve the health and abundance of salmonid species through habitat restoration in the UPS and MSP, and 2) Increase habitat function and diversity within the Yankee Fork River System.

These objectives are so broad as to have little value. Many prior reviews have identified the problems for these watersheds and the need for action. The list of the number of barriers to fish passage and diversions that exist in the watershed is particularly compelling.

The objectives need specificity. For example, stream temperature is to be reduced, but by how much. What is the target goal to which the project is aiming? For the improvement in passage, how far up the rivers did the fish spawn in the past? Do all barriers for the entire length of the stream need to be removed?

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

Accomplishments and Results:This project began in 2008 using staff from the SRHE project and has subsequently added a project manager, field staff, and temporary assistance as needed. In 2009 a water diversion was removed in Elk Creek within the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. In 2011 and 2012, nine projects installed 7.2 miles of fence protecting 158.6 acres from cattle grazing in aquatic habitat. The proposal does not identify metrics to evaluate physical habitat or biological benefits from the fencing.

The text associated with Lemhi River Exclosure Fence: Hayden Creek refers to Panther Creek. This entry needs editing.

A number of problems with administrative planning such as getting permits and environmental compliance and implementation like removal of fiberglass fence posts in Pole Creek are apparent in completing projects over the past few years.

Adaptive Management:Modest adjustments are described in where the project is focusing effort in the Salmon River, but whether the restoration strategy is making a difference is not evaluated. For the first year of the project, the manager worked in the Lemhi River with staff from other agencies to gain experience. This is a commendable example of cooperation among management agencies in the Upper Salmon River. The project is involved in restoration activities in multiple Upper Salmon River watersheds and will be involved in the Yankee Fork in the next few years.

The project lacks an overall habitat restoration strategy carefully linked to the Fish and Wildlife Program, subbasin plan, and draft recovery plan. A project of this modest scale does not have the resources to implement restoration actions across the landscape, addressing multiple limiting factors. The project needs to adopt a focused prioritization, both geographically and with regard to limiting factors. Then, the project needs to establish whether it is going to focus on protection, enhancement, or restoration and the extent to which there are opportunities for addressing watershed and landscape level sources of impairment or whether the project is only capable of addressing symptoms at site specific locations. If the later course is adopted, there needs to be clear benefits anticipated for focal species and methods established to evaluate success in order for the project to be consistent with Fish and Wildlife Program guidance.

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

Project Relationships: The list of Fish and Wildlife projects that interact with 2008-903-00 appears complete. There is evidence that agencies are cooperating among the Yankee Fork, Pahsimeroi, and Lemhi watersheds. The proposal states that ESA-HR will be conducting assessments for the Shoshone-Bannock Yankee Fork Habitat Restoration, but that activity is not clear in the YFSR proposal. The ISRP believes that specific site level implementation tasks in the Yankee Fork need alternatives, clarification, and assessment before final selection and design. The methods for completing assessments need more development before a review is possible.

It is difficult to establish exactly what is being planned, and where, over the 2014-2018 period from the proposal; specifically statements provided in the project relationships section lead to less, rather than more, clarity. For example, the project relationships section states that ESA-HR will include site-scale implementation and effectiveness monitoring to provide relatively rapid assessments. Yet, in the RM&E section in the proposal the text states that there are no protocols associated with the project. These inconsistencies, in the project relationships section and elsewhere need to be reconciled and a clear picture of the activities from 2014-2018 outlined.

Emerging Limiting Factors: A brief discussion of the effect of climate change on stream hydrographs is provided. There is no discussion of human caused limiting factors that may change in the near term. These might include changes resulting from recreational use, grazing, mining, forestry, and irrigated agriculture. Are there projections of how these activities might change over the next 20 to 50 years and how projected trends inform the types of restoration that are likely to provide survival benefits for salmon.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There are two deliverables: Implement specific restoration actions in the UPS and MSP and Assist/Cost Share on restoration in the Yankee Fork. The narrative for each of the deliverables is too vague for ISRP evaluation.

For Deliverable 1 several planning steps are outlined to be completed in 2013 with selection, design, and execution of projects to take place in 2014 -2018. However, the proposal does not give details on how much technical assessment from hydrologists, biologists, and construction specialists is needed during 2013, and whether the work can actually be accomplished with the resources in the project. The project budget is modest; each year there is approximately $120,000 for facilities and equipment and $150,000 for Yankee Fork subcontracts. It is not clear what is included in the $120,000 per year for facilities and equipment, but if this is used for restoration it will not provide resources for the projects that need to be implemented.

Deliverable 1 states: “Specific projects may include replacing culverts and/or bridges to provide friendly fish passage and habitat quality improvement, divert or consolidate diversions to increase stream flow, riparian vegetation to improve cover and shade, road re-alignment or decommissioning roads to decrease sedimentation, improve in-channel function for spawning and rearing fish habitat, reconnecting off-channel habitats to tributaries, livestock exclosure fencing to eliminate domestic animal impacts, and acquire easements to protect fish habitat.” The ISRP does not believe the proposal and budget provides enough information to judge what will be completed or accomplished and what survival benefits for fish may be expected.

The first deliverable appears to be a planning and prioritization program for the watershed actions. A current inventory of the problems has not yet been developed, and this is one of the first tasks. The priority system also needs to be developed but surely a system can be borrowed from other organizations rather than developing a new one. An RM&E plan also needs to be developed to monitor progress towards rehabilitation and impacts of the same on the fish populations.

Deliverable 2 - Assist with Yankee Fork. The proposal needs to be more specific about what role ESA-HR will have in the Yankee Fork and what the subcontract is for.

Overall, there is an absence of discussion of Panther Creek in the proposal. The Panther Creek watershed had been a priority for the Shoshone-Bannock tribe, and a few of the fencing exclosure projects completed in 2011/2012 were in the Panther Creek watershed. How far along is active restoration in Panther Creek?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No protocols are described. Is this part of the 2013 deliverable mentioned in a separate proposal?