The ISRP commends the proponents for their ability to include and gain cooperation with a variety of stakeholders including irrigators, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Washington Water Trust, and the Washington Department of Ecology. These collaborations have allowed the proponents to ensure that the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek has a perennial flow for the first time in 100 years. However, the proposal submitted contains no objectives for the 2021 - 2023 period and no budget for 2021 to 2027. It appears that the proponents are waiting for the results of ongoing water monitoring and habitat evaluation to determine their next objective. The proponents also indicate that this project will become part of another project the Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP #200722400) in 2023.

Uncertainty exists on whether current conditions in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek can accommodate summer steelhead. Two independent assessments, by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) and the BOR, are being conducted to determine if additional water releases or habitat restoration actions will be needed in lower Salmon Creek to support summer steelhead. Information obtained by these studies will be evaluated by the Okanogan Irrigation District, CTCR, BOR, and NOAA.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans. If the project is subsumed by OSHIP, the annual report for the OSHIP project should address these conditions, e.g., under a section on Salmon Creek.

1. SMART objectives. Provide SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for each of the major goals and incremental actions.
2. Project evaluation and adjustment. Develop an adaptive management plan describing how each of the major phases of the project will be sequenced, coordinated, monitored, and evaluated, with information on known decision points, explicit schedules for evaluation and decision-making, and documentation of decisions and project changes.
3. Risk of not accomplishing outcomes. Provide an assessment of the relative risks associated with not accomplishing specific outcomes related to instream flow, instream habitat, entrainment in the diversion canal, and sedimentation and the consequence for the overall project if specific elements are unsuccessful.
4. Adequate future habitat. Provide an assessment of the potential for the proposed actions to create habitat conditions that will be adequate for steelhead survival over the next 50 years. It appears that current conditions are marginal, and it is unclear if the proposed actions would create adequate habitat for steelhead in the face of changes in climate and land use.
5. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Upper Columbia River Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan subbasins. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal identifies two goals: 1) reconnecting Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River to reestablish anadromous steelhead and 2) ensuring that habitat in lower Salmon Creek is adequate to support juvenile steelhead [and returning adult steelhead]. The proposal does not include SMART objectives. Given what is known about the lower 4.3 miles of the stream, current habitat conditions, and habitat requirements of steelhead, it should be possible to develop clear quantitative objectives with specific time frames.

It appears that the goals of this project are intertwined with that of the Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP 200302200) and that the separate goal of this project is to find ways to reconnect the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River to help reestablish anadromous salmonids. The proponents do not clearly state their objectives, and it appears that objectives will be determined between now and 2023 based on the results of other studies. A list of possible objectives is presented in the Methods section of the proposal, and they are not stated as SMART objectives but rather as “There are three factors that are likely limiting production in Salmon Creek.” (Proposal page 11).

Q2: Methods

The Methods section describes a sequence of steps used to address three limiting factors: 1) increase flow, which has two options (increase storage in Salmon Lake for release as needed or increase benefit of flow in the lower reach using inverted vortex rock weirs), 2) increase the effectiveness of irrigation diversion screens, and 3) reduce local sediment inputs to the creek. The proposal does not explain the ecological assessments that determined that these factors were the highest priorities, as opposed to other potential limiting factors or alternative actions. Interestingly, the proponents list sources to fund these actions (e.g., BOR, Okanogan Irrigation District, State of Washington) but do not include BPA. Furthermore, the proponents do not include a budget but state: “By FY2023 this project is projected to be encapsulated to what is currently the Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Improvement Program. Therefore, no budget is identified for this project.” (Proposal page 27).

The proposal involves multiple steps and analyses to accomplish its overall goals. As such, the proposal should present the anticipated actions in a series of phases. Each phase should have explicit targets necessary for completion before moving onto the next phase. The current description of the assessment of three potential limiting factors and subsequent steps to address them needs to be prioritized. If any one of the three are unsuccessful, it is uncertain whether the project should proceed further. The proponents have sufficient information to do a risk analysis to determine thresholds for proceeding with the project. The project should incorporate such a risk analysis as an initial step before proceeding with the three options to deal with limiting factors.

To provide additional instream flow, the proponents identify two options: 1) additional storage in the reservoir and 2) additional instream storage. The additional-storage option for the reservoir requires moving utilities and septic systems of lakeside residences, a step that would require additional funding from Washington State. It also requires a survey of the integrity of the dam and potential risks. The proposal also lists Option A1, which creates more storage in the current channel with existing flow by building rock weirs. The proposal indicates that these structures would provide rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead and would not increase stream temperatures substantially. The proposal does not explain how these pools and the increased in-channel residence time would not result in greater rates of warming from solar radiation. The proponents should assess the potential for increased stream temperatures as a result of the rock weirs.

A second limiting factor is entrainment of fish in a diversion canal. A series of remedial actions have been taken previously, but fish are still being trapped behind drum screens. Negotiations for operation of a pump station are underway, but the outcome is uncertain.

A third limiting factor is sedimentation. Most of the reach currently lacks riparian vegetation and has steep vertical banks. Proponents propose to install instream structures to deflect high velocity flow away from banks, plant riparian vegetation, fence livestock away from the stream, and move agriculture practices back from the adjacent stream banks. All of these actions will require landowner approval. The proposal does not indicate how long it will take for these collective actions to change the rate of sedimentation and the degree to which sedimentation is anticipated to be reduced. It is not clear how the instream rock structures would be consistent with high quality habitat for juvenile steelhead and spawning by adult steelhead.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

No formal adaptive management cycle is described. The proponents indicate that two independent habitat assessments on the lower reach of Salmon Creek are planned. Results from these assessments will be used to determine the next steps for the project. A companion project, OBMEP estimates the abundance of adult and juvenile summer steelhead in Salmon Creek. These data will be used to track trends in abundance over time.

Although it is not clearly stated, it appears that the proponents of this project are tasked with overseeing restoration of the physical environment (i.e., flow and sediment) of Salmon Creek and that OBMEP will monitor the abundance of juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids (primarily steelhead). There is no description of how results of OBMEP monitoring will influence the actions of this project. The proposal indicates that monitoring will be conducted for some of the options for addressing limiting factors but does not describe an evaluation process that will be used.

The proposal indicates in Attachment E that the BOR will conduct an instream flow and habitat assessment study in spring and early summer 2021. There is no description of how the assessment will be conducted or evaluated. As examples, will the instream flow analysis also examine flows during winter? Is habitat in lower Salmon Creek adequate for overwintering for juvenile steelhead, or will they be forced to move to downstream reaches in the Okanogan River to survive through winter? How will the project determine the abundance of steelhead as opposed to resident rainbow trout? The proposal indicates that instream structures will be monitored to determine their ability to remain intact during high flows. It is unclear what the project would do if observations demonstrate the structures have been changed. No performance criteria are described. Additionally, the proposal indicates juvenile steelhead will be enumerated to determine if their utilization of the lower reach increases. No information is provided on how this will be monitored or if other monitoring projects of the CTCR will assist.

The proposal does not describe any monitoring related to actions to increase the effectiveness of diversion screens. Minimum performance criteria should be identified and used in assessing advisability of proceeding.

The proposal does not describe any monitoring related to actions to decrease sedimentation in the 4.3 miles of lower Salmon Creek. The EDT analysis conducted by OBMEP could provide a basis for estimating the degree to which sediment conditions could be improved and the degree to which these could potentially influence steelhead survival. This information could be used to develop performance metrics and identify monitoring methods and timing.

The proponents should provide more complete descriptions of the collective monitoring and evaluation of attempts to improve conditions in the lower Salmon Creek.

Most importantly, the project should identify an explicit sequence of adaptive evaluation steps for the major phases of this project. This sequence should include the specific decisions, participants in the decision-making process, timing of meetings and decisions, and alternative modifications of the project based on potential outcomes.

Proponents identify climate change as one of the most significant confounding factors. They indicate that the NorWest model projects water temperatures in the lower reach of Salmon Creek will average approximately 9°C by 2040; however, data loggers recorded maximum temperatures as high as 22.6°C in 2020. The proponents hope that increased stream flow will provide better thermal conditions and offset potential adverse temperatures in the future, but no evidence or analyses are provided to support that desired outcome. Other potential confounding factors that are not identified in the proposal are future changes in land use, increases in human population, and changes in water quality. Have the proponents conducted a worse case analysis to determine the risks they face in moving forward with this project?

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proponents’ ability to increase the amount and availability of water in Salmon Creek has had positive benefits to fish (i.e., steelhead). The number of juvenile O. mykiss are among the highest in Okanogan River tributaries since 2014. It is not clear whether these are steelhead and not resident rainbow trout. Additionally, the proportion of natural origin returning (pNOR) adult steelhead in the creek has been increasing consistently since 2009. The absolute number of natural origin adult steelhead, however, has remained about 30 during that time.

ISRP Comments on the Specific Responses

ISRP Preliminary Comment 1. Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal needs to better describe how the project fits into regional restoration programs and the Biological Opinion. The proposal indicates that the project contributes to implementing BiOp RPA 34 and 35, but these are not mentioned in the significance to regional programs section. The proposal should provide explicit statements on RPA elements from the BiOp and restoration delisting under the Upper Columbia recovery plan. The presentation to the ISRP that showed the fish abundance targets for the subbasin, and for Salmon Creek for the recovery plan, subbasin plan, and tribal plans, is the type of explicit information the ISRP believes is essential to provide context and justification for the project tasks.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The additional information provided by the sponsor does not directly answer the questions posed by the ISRP and should be improved in future proposals. A sentence each is provided on RPA 34 and 35, but the text does not explain whether the actions in the proposal are explicitly identified in the RPA(s) and what the actions in the RPA(s) are. For example, the ISRP is under the impression that RPA 35 has a table 5 that gives improvement in survival assigned to habitat actions in specific tributaries. The ISRP believes this type of information is needed to establish the context for the project. Where the response cites the Recovery Plan and BiOp, details are lacking about the role that Salmon Creek would play in the recovery of steelhead. The ISRP understands the general relationship to the Recovery Plan and BiOp; it is the specific details that are requested. These specific details provide the basis for establishing quantitative objectives, monitoring and evaluation, and triggers to consider additional actions under adaptive management. Consequently, the ISRP believes the request is not just pedantic, but forms the foundation for guiding the project in the medium- and longterm. In the response to the ISRP, text is copied from a draft Okanogan Subbasin Steelhead Hatchery Master Plan. A portion of that text describes recovery plan standards for abundance and spatial distribution of steelhead in the Okanogan River subbasin. A succinct summary of those criteria and how the habitat restoration in Salmon Creek is intended to improve survival in Salmon Creek and contribute to achieving steelhead delisting is needed in future proposals.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 2. Technical Background (problem statement): The technical background provided in the proposal is very brief, but what is included suggests that a fairly thorough assessment of habitat conditions and fish distribution in the stream has been conducted. The proposal indicates that Salmon Creek contains much of the suitable spawning habitat for spring Chinook and steelhead in the Okanogan system. Restoring summer passage through the 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek below the irrigation diversion was identified as the second restoration priority in an assessment conducted on the Okanogan. The proposal makes an effective argument that water quality and physical habitat in upper Salmon Creek are worth the effort of restoring its connection to the Okanogan River during the migration (and irrigation) season.

The information that was presented in the proposal is sufficient to indicate that the habitat above the diversion is of high quality, supporting the high priority of reconnecting the upper watershed with the Okanogan River. A more detailed discussion of the results of the habitat and fish assessments that have been completed are needed to determine the opportunities for an RM&E program to assess response of the system to improved summer flows.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response references a quantitative spawning habitat survey in 1995 and another survey in 1998. In addition, the response states “preliminary estimates of smolt production within pool tail-out regions indicated this 4-mile reach of Salmon Creek has the potential to produce more than 90,000 summer steelhead and 123,000 Chinook salmon smolts at a survival-to-emergence of 10%.” These statements suggest that existing habitat inventories are either over a decade old or contain considerable uncertainty. Periodic (every 1 or 2 years) habitat measurements will greatly assist project staff in determining the productive capacity of upper Salmon Creek for steelhead and Chinook, and also in identifying biological “hotspots” for spawning and rearing.

The response includes information from recent fish assessments (Fisher and Arterburn 2003, 2005) providing support for the sponsors ability to assess and evaluate the flow and channel for steelhead migration. As noted in other sections of this review, clear metrics for evaluation and links to recovery and BiOp plans are still needed.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 3. The objectives focus solely on recovery of summer steelhead. They provide a quantitative goal (Objective 2, return of 250 adult natural origin steelhead/yr). The introduction indicates that Salmon Creek also is an important spawning and rearing area for spring Chinook. Is the focus only on steelhead due to the fact that spring Chinook access the upper watershed prior to low flow becoming an issue below the diversion structure? Is there habitat below the diversion that would be improved by enhancing flow that could be valuable to spring Chinook?

ISRP Comments on the Response: Explicit answers to the two questions were not provided. The implication from the text is that the focus is on steelhead because they are listed and spring Chinook in the Okanogan are extirpated and not essential for recovery of that ESU, and that the volume of water for Chinook restoration (reintroduction) is not available at this time. There is text that states that spring Chinook are using Salmon Creek, but whether this use involves the low flow channel and leased water is not clear.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 4. The problem statement section of the proposal needs to include the TRT status review summary of recent abundance and productivity for the focal species, the near-term and long-term objectives under the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery and Subbasin Plan, and discuss the extent to which those objectives are believed to be accomplished by continued implementation of the water lease.

ISRP Comments on the Response: Text in the proposal and the response provide much of the desired information. However some of the information remains in a general, rather than specific format and often without sufficient clarity. For example, in the response to the ISRP the sponsor answers the query by stating the BiOp population target is 500 steelhead in the Okanogan River subbasin and that all four populations must meet their targets to achieve the BiOp goal. But the four populations are not mentioned, nor are the targets for each of the populations. In this proposal the population of particular interest is Salmon Creek, but the overall context will aid in understanding the restoration in a subbasin level framework. The proposal goes on to state that Salmon Creek is considered a minor spawning area for steelhead and that the Colville Tribe estimates that 159 steelhead spawners are needed to achieve restoration objectives. If the subbasin goal is 500 steelhead, 159 in Salmon Creek would seem like a major, not minor contributor.

ISRP Preliminary Comment: During the site visit, the ISRP engaged in a discussion of the source populations being used to supplement and reintroduce steelhead to Salmon Creek. A paragraph or two in the problem statement should be added to provide a summary of the planning that has taken place in this regard. The ISRP concern is that steelhead from a population whose replication in Salmon Creek might contribute little to meeting genetic restoration objectives would constrain the full benefits of the project. An explanation is needed of steelhead population structure – independent populations, and major population groups – and priorities for obtaining stock for reintroduction or supplementation.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The text explaining the status of Wells Hatchery stock and the text from the draft hatchery plan given in response to 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions provides sufficient explanation of the recovery planning at this time. The topic can be reviewed in greater detail if the draft master plan is submitted. The ISRP is curious whether this plan will replace the Cassimer Bar Master Plan that began review several years ago.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 5. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results).

Accomplishments, Results: A paragraph in the proposal states, “Since 2009, there has been a conservative estimate of 662 adult steelhead which returned to Salmon Creek. This is a conservative estimate since counts are conducted via a video weir which becomes circumvented at flows in excess of 20 cfs.” This information indicates that there is an active program in place to assess fish populations in the Salmon Creek watershed, but no details about this program, or how it will be used to judge the effectiveness of improved passage below the diversion, was included in the proposal.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response states that a primary metric for the project is the ratio of steelhead migrating and spawning above the point of diversion. The ratio of steelhead had been 2 fish spawning below for each fish spawning above in 2009 and 2010, whereas in 2011 and 2012 the ratio was 3 fish spawning above the diversion for 2 fish spawning below.

The ISRP believes metrics for the project need to be established, monitored, and used for evaluation and adaptive management. This important aspect of the project needs to be completed.

ISRP Preliminary Comment: The proposal needs to include succinct details on the video weir to enumerate adult steelhead and salmon, methods used to count emigrating smolts, survival of smolts to points downstream that is hopefully contrasted with other locations, a physical condition monitoring program for the channel, and to estimate the juvenile production and adult population generated by spawning and rearing in the eleven miles of now accessible habitat.

ISRP Comments on the Response: General information on the video weir is provided. Additional details are needed that provide evidence that the precision of estimates is adequate to guide management decisions on whether restoration standards have been met, whether additional flows and habitat is needed below the point of diversion, and whether continuation of the water lease is justified.

Adaptive Management:

The response to the ISRP provides adequate explanation of the state of adaptive management for this project. It is evident that the sponsor and various co-managers are engaged in longerterm discussions about the need for water and habitat for steelhead in Salmon Creek. Linkage needs to be clearly established between the decisions that will need to be made and project metrics and subbasin level M&E. The ISRP remains concerned that development of metrics for project evaluation is insufficiently linked to plans for data acquisition. The project has progressed to the point where a well-articulated decision framework would be useful.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 6. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response provides improved understanding of the role of the hatchery program and OBMEP. The ISRP believes the hatchery program needs independent review soon and that an M&E plan for this project needs to be clearly established. The response states that OBMEP collects both habitat and fish data throughout the Okanogan subbasin, including Salmon Creek. However, the response goes on to state that OBMEP is currently proposing to estimate juvenile production in Salmon Creek. Assessing juvenile production seems essential to the ISRP. As stated earlier, the ISRP is concerned that project metrics, M&E, and adaptive management is proceeding in an ad hoc manner, and that the project has developed to the point where a more formal decision framework is required. The ISRP appreciated the hatchery program draft, as it clarified the status of anticipated artificial production for conservation and harvest.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 7. Deliverables, Work Elements: The work element and deliverable on the purchase of 1,200 acre feet of water is adequate. The work elements and deliverables on inspection and maintenance of the low flow channel are inadequate.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response provides a summary of challenges with maintaining the migration channel and the approach used for inspection. The proposal should provide a description of a flexible inspection and maintenance plan that is justified.

This project is straightforward and involves maintaining a low-flow bypass channel that restores the connection between Salmon Creek and its parent stream, the Okanogan River, as well as negotiating water leases and other agreements with the Okanogan Irrigation District that will increase flow in lower Salmon Creek and the bypass channel, which will improve conditions during the primary steelhead and Chinook migration period as well as facilitating the downstream passage of smolts. According to the proposal, Salmon Creek was historically one of the most important spawning and rearing tributaries in the Okanogan River system, but anadromous salmonids were extirpated when Conconnuly Dam was constructed in the early 1900s. Restoration of flow to the lower portion of the Salmon Creek drainage network during late spring and summer is clearly an important restoration goal for the Okanogan system.

The proposal, however, is incomplete and revision is required. It does not provide sufficient background context on the status of the focal species; benefits that are anticipated to be accomplished by this project including a timeframe for improvements in abundance; relationship of the project to steelhead recovery and delisting; and criteria for evaluating success.

The proposal incompletely describes the work elements to be conducted by this project. Additional detail on the specific actions that will be undertaken to maintain the low-flow channel and how they will be sequenced from 2014 to 2017 should be provided. Finally, a much more complete description of the relationship between this project and projects in the Okanogan watershed that are monitoring fish and aquatic habitat condition should be included in the proposal.

Responses requested: See each proposal review topic for questions to be addressed in the proposal revision.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal needs to better describe how the project fits into regional restoration programs and the Biological Opinion. The proposal indicates that the project contributes to implementing BiOp RPA 34 and 35, but these are not mentioned in the significance to regional programs section. The proposal should provide explicit statements on RPA elements from the BiOp and restoration delisting under the Upper Columbia recovery plan. The presentation to the ISRP that showed the fish abundance targets for the subbasin, and for Salmon Creek for the recovery plan, subbasin plan, and tribal plans, is the type of explicit information the ISRP believes is essential to provide context and justification for the project tasks.

Technical Background (problem statement): The technical background provided in the proposal is very brief, but what is included suggests that a fairly thorough assessment of habitat conditions and fish distribution in the stream has been conducted. The proposal indicates that Salmon Creek contains much of the suitable spawning habitat for spring Chinook and steelhead in the Okanogan system. Restoring summer passage through the 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek below the irrigation diversion was identified as the second restoration priority in an assessment conducted on the Okanogan. The proposal makes an effective argument that water quality and physical habitat in upper Salmon Creek are worth the effort of restoring its connection to the Okanogan River during the migration (and irrigation) season.

The information that was presented in the proposal is sufficient to indicate that the habitat above the diversion is of high quality, supporting the high priority of reconnecting the upper watershed with the Okanogan River. A more detailed discussion of the results of the habitat and fish assessments that have been completed are needed to determine the opportunities for an RM&E program to assess response of the system to improved summer flows.

The objectives focus solely on recovery of summer steelhead. They provide a quantitative goal (Objective 2, return of 250 adult natural origin steelhead/yr). The introduction indicates that Salmon Creek also is an important spawning and rearing area for spring Chinook. Is the focus only on steelhead due to the fact that spring Chinook access the upper watershed prior to low flow becoming an issue below the diversion structure? Is there habitat below the diversion that would be improved by enhance flow that could be valuable to spring Chinook?

Specific quantitative targets for steelhead adult abundance and juvenile emigration are absent. A summary of long-term biological goals and some time frame for achieving the goals are needed. The project has apparently established an intermediate term (12-year) lease for water to wet a constructed low-flow channel, but there is no indication of what is going to happen in the longer term (post agreement) and what level of natural fish production is needed to expand on this initial agreement.

The problem statement section of the proposal needs to include the TRT status review summary of recent abundance and productivity for the focal species, the near-term and long-term objectives under the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery and Subbasin Plan, and discuss the extent to which those objectives are believed to be accomplished by continued implementation of the water lease. During the site visit, the ISRP engaged in a discussion of the source populations being used to supplement and reintroduce steelhead to Salmon Creek. A paragraph or two in the problem statement should be added to provide a summary of the planning that has taken place in this regard. The ISRP concern is that steelhead from a population whose replication in Salmon Creek might contribute little to meeting genetic restoration objectives would constrain the full benefits of the project. An explanation is needed of steelhead population structure – independent populations, and major population groups – and priorities for obtaining stock for reintroduction or supplementation.

Objectives: There are two objectives identified: (OBJ-1) restore instream flow in Salmon Creek; and (OBJ-2) Restore instream flows to Salmon Creek. The difference in deliverables is that Objective 2 involves the lease of water while Objective 1 includes the lease of water and maintenance of a constructed low-flow channel. For both objectives a description of how success will be evaluated is needed. These metrics need to include physical habitat and biological targets.

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

Accomplishments and results: Although the project dates from 1996, the proposal describes work on the bypass channel and securing the 12-year water lease agreement with the Okanogan Irrigation District since 2009. Results therefore pertain only to bypass channel construction and maintenance, and to extending the water lease to provide additional flow. In addition, the project sponsors wish to modify the bypass channel so it provides passage for adult steelhead at 10 cfs instead of ~25 cfs.

A paragraph in the proposal states, “Since 2009, there has been a conservative estimate of 662 adult steelhead which returned to Salmon Creek. This is a conservative estimate since counts are conducted via a video weir which becomes circumvented at flows in excess of 20 cfs.” This information indicates that there is an active program in place to assess fish populations in the Salmon Creek watershed, but no details about this program, or how it will be used to judge the effectiveness of improved passage below the diversion, was included in the proposal.

The proposal also states that hatchery steelhead smolts have been used to document adequacy of the channel. However, no data are presented and no explanation is provided on the specifics of the monitoring, numbers of hatchery steelhead juveniles or smolts released, and estimates of natural smolt production. Fish use of the bypass channel should be assessed, and estimates of adults in and smolts out (both wild and hatchery) are needed to evaluate the biological effectiveness of this restoration effort. Specifically, this project needs at least three elements for evaluation: 1) emigration of stocked and natural smolts, 2) upstream migration of adult steelhead, and 3) physical condition of the constructed channel.

The proposal identified that recent flows have damaged the channel that stocked smolts presumably left the system and returned as adults – with at least 600 adults returning in the past few years. Mention is made of a video weir to monitor adult passage. The proposal needs to include succinct details on the video weir to enumerate adult steelhead and salmon, methods used to count emigrating smolts, survival of smolts to points downstream that is hopefully contrasted with other locations, a physical condition monitoring program for the channel, and to estimate the juvenile production and adult population generated by spawning and rearing in the eleven miles of now accessible habitat.

Adaptive Management: The adaptive management section of the proposal simply indicates that changes in water releases from Conconully Reservoir and alterations in the release location of steelhead smolts have been implemented or are being considered. There is no indication that these changes were linked in any way to an RM&E program that indicated that these changes could be beneficial (although the water release issue arose because of damage to the low flow channel). This project would benefit from a formal adaptive management process.

Two instances of adaptive management appeared in the proposal with one appearing in the secondary focal species section. The first described altered water management to reduce damage to the bypass channel, presumably to streambanks, during high flow events. This suggests that project managers are not allowing the bypass channel to interact with its riparian area in a way that would mimic a stream's natural interaction with its floodplain. There may be good reasons for doing this, but we caution against taking a hard bioengineering approach to fish habitat in instances where natural meander processes can yield long-term habitat benefits. The second example is the institution of a sport fishery targeted at non-native species in Salmon Creek. This seems like a good idea as long as there is not excessive mortality to focal species.

Evaluation of Results

Result reporting is brief, so retrospective comments on the project by the ISRP are therefore incomplete. Water leases and low-flow channel construction have been achieved. Removing migration barriers is argued to have substantial potential to contribute to restoration of salmon because intact spawning and rearing habitat is available and salmon abundance and productivity response will be quick. Restoration of access in Salmon Creek could contribute to estimating the benefits from this action, but the data presented are insufficient to establish reasonable conclusions on when, or if, the project may accomplish the steelhead and spring Chinook restoration objectives.

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

Project relationships are not explained at all in the proposal. This omission is a substantial deficiency for assessing the effectiveness of this project. The proposal indicates that the sponsors are not requesting support for RM&E. But there are a number of RM&E efforts in the Okanogan system that are likely collecting information that would help to evaluate the effectiveness of reconnecting Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River, and which could greatly benefit this project. This expensive effort incurs ongoing costs for water purchase. Some understanding of the benefit being derived in terms of fish production would be very important to determine the value of investing in projects of this type. The proposal should have described RM&E efforts occurring in Salmon Creek that are collecting data relevant to this project and should have indicated how the sponsors intend to use this information to improve project effectiveness going forward by using an adaptive management plan.

This proposal indicates that emerging limiting factors are being considered in restoration planning. The proposal mentions that providing consistent access to Salmon Creek may help mitigate for increased water temperatures caused by climate change. Salmon Creek drains a watershed with a northeastern aspect and has significant spring input. Therefore, it exhibits water temperatures through the summer that are much cooler than those in the Okanogan River and could serve as a thermal refuge if access were possible. There may be little this project can do to address problems related to long-term climate change, but the observation that Salmon Creek maintains a temperature regime more suited to cold water species does reinforce the need to allow salmon and steelhead access to its headwaters. There also are a number of ongoing programs to address impacts from non-native fishes in the Okanogan River. Statements in the proposal about removing invasive species suggest that the restoration project has links to other projects that have not been included in the proposal.

While climate change, predation from invasive bass and brook trout, and instream flows are identified as emerging limiting factors, how they will be addressed through adaptive management is not discussed.

Few details about hatchery releases were given. The proposal does not state what the estimated carrying capacity for juvenile steelhead and Chinook salmon might be in Salmon Creek. At some point such an estimate is needed, because as natural productions ramps up the number of hatchery releases may need to be ramped down.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Purchase of water for instream flow and maintenance of the low flow channel are the primary work elements. It appears that most of the requested funding for channel maintenance is basically for a contingency fund to repair damage should it occur. The ISRP recognizes that it not possible to specifically identify damage that will occur to the channel in the future. However, some explanation of the possible issues that might arise and the work elements and methods required to correct these issues should have been included in the proposal. A general description of deliverables and work elements is given, but the proposal lacked sufficient detail for scientific review. Specifying work actions and a timeline are needed.

Deliverables, Work Elements: The work element and deliverable on the purchase of 1,200 acre feet of water is adequate. The work elements and deliverables on inspection and maintenance of the low flow channel are inadequate.

Metrics: None are given. Monitoring and Evaluation is needed for this project, or linked to data and evaluation performed through other projects. The information provided in the proposal is inadequate.

Methods: None are provided.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Not Applicable. No monitoring methods are provided; funding for monitoring is not requested.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 9:08:24 AM.