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

This project will protect and restore habitat to benefit spring Chinook and ESA-listed summer steelhead, and bull trout mainly by improving connectivity and complexity in riparian habitat areas. It addresses the objectives of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, the Upper Walla Walla River Habitat Restoration Action Plan, the FCRPS 2008 BiOp, and the Snake River Salmon and Bull Trout Recovery Plans. The sponsors provide an adequate discussion of the primary limiting factors in the subbasin. The objectives address the limiting factors and the proposed work appears to be justified. The significance to regional programs, technical background, and objectives were for the most part adequately described.

Annual reports for the project indicate that representative portions of previously completed projects have been monitored using modified protocols from a variety of sources. Both physical and biological parameters were measured. Recently, the sponsors worked with Stillwater Sciences and built a habitat effectiveness bio-monitoring procedure. The bio-monitoring method uses both BACI and BA designs to evaluate adult and juvenile salmonid abundance. Additional details about this approach were provided during the site visit. A physical habitat assessment monitoring plan is also being produced. In this case, the sponsors are working with USGS and NOAA Fisheries personnel. Explanations on how and when these two new tools will be used to assess the effectiveness of the work being proposed are needed as the status and future plans for RM&E for the project are unclear.

The sponsors participate in a number of local working groups including the Mill Creek, Oregon Solutions, Priority Projects, and Lower Walla Walla working groups and are also active members in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board and the Regional Technical Team. Some discussion of how local partners affect the Riverine Ecosystem Planning approach employed by the sponsors to prioritize habitat restoration areas is needed. Once projects have been identified, the River Restoration Analysis Tool (RiverRat) that was developed by the USFWS and NMFS is used to plan, design, and implement selected projects.

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

An impressive number of projects have been implemented including conservation easements, land purchases, and passage improvements. Since its inception the project has completed 13 habitat restoration projects and is currently working on an additional four projects. Ten of these increased habitat complexity by replanting native vegetation, installing fencing, reconnecting the floodplain to the stream and enhancing riparian areas. An additional four projects were directed toward improving fish passage and three others were largely instituted to protect existing habitat from development. The sponsors provided short summaries of results and photo points for each ongoing project. These summaries were instructive, but more information would have been helpful. What percentage of the Walla Walla River system accessible to anadromous salmonids, for instance, has been affected by restoration projects? What is the distribution of existing and planned projects, and can they be connected to build a linked network of functioning stream and riparian environments? Additional quantitative information, especially on fish response, would have also improved the discussion.

The sponsor’s state that with additional funding provided through the Accords Agreement they were able to improve their restoration planning process. This is a positive step and is adaptive because it undoubtedly draws on past planning and implementation experience. A number of other adaptive management actions have also occurred. Originally restoration efforts were not directly linked to primary limiting factors, now they are. Additionally, tools like LiDAR, FLIR, topographic and bathymetric surveys, physical habitat surveys, riparian inventories, hyporheic assessments, and hydraulic modeling are now being used to plan and design projects. Project Administration has also changed, now before a project is started a five-step process is put in place that establishes goals, time lines, organizes planning teams, and ensures that proper permits are obtained. Finally, the knowledge gained from ongoing habitat restoration activities is being applied to new projects, not just in the Walla Walla subbasin but in the John Day, Umatilla, and Grande Ronde as well.

Evaluation of Results

For over 180 years the Walla Walla River basin has been impacted by anthropogenic impacts that have ranged from dam construction, dewatering due to irrigation, channel simplification, levee construction, logging and splash dam use, and over grazing. These impacts caused the extirpation of spring Chinook in 1925 and in the late 1990’s Walla Walla River summer steelhead and bull trout were listed as threatened by the ESA. Prior to the establishment of the 2008 Accords, the CTUIR had performed a number of localized restoration actions. After the Accords were established funds were available for larger projects. Once this occurred, lengthy assessment and design phases were started. Pre-project metrics that are being measured include: acres of riparian forest, percentage of floodplain available to the stream under various flows, percentage of streambed that can be used for spawning and rearing, and total stream length vs. valley length. After a project is completed these metrics are measured again, typically once every three to five years.

Additionally, the tribe instituted its First Foods paradigm and coupled this with its River Vision plan. This approach has been used to guide all subsequent restoration actions. In response to concerns raised by the ISRP in previous reviews, the sponsors developed a bio-monitoring and a physical habitat assessment plan. Both were recently completed, and the ISRP has reviewed the bio-monitoring plan. It is hoped that these M&E plans will be used to assess the effectiveness of the proposed projects.

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

The sponsors list a number of agencies and organizations with whom they are coordinating, but they do not describe in any detail the nature of the coordination. For example, do the projects share data or participate together in planning, implementing, or monitoring projects?

Two emerging limiting factors were identified, climate change and aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Climate models predict that winter precipitation will shift from snow to rain and that will cause lower summer flows to occur. Additionally higher peak flows and warmer water temperatures are expected. The middle and lower parts of the Walla Walla River will be most impacted by these changes. Currently the hydrograph and water temperatures in these parts of the river are primarily controlled by irrigation withdrawals. Climate change will likely alter irrigation needs, and this may worsen the impacts of irrigation on flow and temperature. As water temperatures warm, invasive predaceous fish species are expected to expand into areas that presently have cools waters. Terrestrial noxious weeds may also expand.

No specific actions to deal with expanding non-native predator populations or altered water use patterns are mentioned. Instead, the approach taken to meet these emerging challenges is to expand habitat resilience by increasing natural and self-sustaining processes in floodplain and riparian habitats. The degree of resiliency each project might provide is best determined by biological and physical habitat monitoring efforts designed to measure habitat diversity, connectivity, and fish use among other attributes. Thus the implementation and consistent use of such monitoring programs should be regarded as key component for each proposed habitat restoration action.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has eight deliverables. Seven of them are explicit habitat restoration projects that address one or more of the project’s five objectives. For example, five of the projects, Kentch, Middle Walla Walla Fish Passage, Tumalum Levee setback, Bolan-Kelly, and South Fork Touchet River Habitat Enhancement address the objective of making the stream channel more complex. Four of the above projects are also being performed to connect streams to their floodplains and to enhance riparian zones, another project objective. Fish passage enhancement and improvement in water quality are two additional objectives that are being met by several of the proposed projects. The non-project deliverable is to contribute cost-share funds to in-basin habitat work being led by other partners. Overall, the deliverables are described only in general terms, nearly all are in the early planning stage. While many of them are relatively straightforward, it is difficult to assess their technical merit without more site-specific details. It is clear that a lot of planning will be required before most of the actions can be implemented.

The ISRP also wishes that implementation of an effectiveness monitoring program across the subbasin and its neighbors would move at a faster pace. We called for an integrated action effectiveness monitoring program at our last review and project sponsors agreed that one was needed. We continue to believe that monitoring action effectiveness remains one of the most pressing needs in both the Walla Walla and Umatilla subbasins, and we hope that one can be completed and implemented soon.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

One RM&E protocol, Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Restoration Monitoring Plan, was cited. It has twenty methods some of which are fairly well developed while others are lacking explanations for how a procedure should occur. The protocol and methods cited appear to be appropriate for the types of data that will be collected.

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

The issues can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.

 

Further information on how and when action effectiveness will be monitored and evaluated is needed.

Some additional discussion on how restoration actions are prioritized is needed. For example, how do local partners affect the Riverine Ecosystem Planning Approach used by the sponsors to identify where restoration actions should be focused? Additionally, explanations for how selected project activities fit into the larger subbasin landscape would be useful as they would help justify why the habitat restoration actions proposed were chosen.

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

This project will protect and restore habitat to benefit spring Chinook and ESA-listed summer steelhead, and bull trout mainly by improving connectivity and complexity in riparian habitat areas. It addresses the objectives of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan, the Upper Walla Walla River Habitat Restoration Action Plan, the FCRPS 2008 BiOp, and the Snake River Salmon and Bull Trout Recovery Plans. The sponsors provide an adequate discussion of the primary limiting factors in the subbasin. The objectives address the limiting factors and the proposed work appears to be justified. The significance to regional programs, technical background, and objectives were for the most part adequately described.

Annual reports for the project indicate that representative portions of previously completed projects have been monitored using modified protocols from a variety of sources. Both physical and biological parameters were measured. Recently, the sponsors worked with Stillwater Sciences and built a habitat effectiveness bio-monitoring procedure. The bio-monitoring method uses both BACI and BA designs to evaluate adult and juvenile salmonid abundance. Additional details about this approach were provided during the site visit. A physical habitat assessment monitoring plan is also being produced. In this case, the sponsors are working with USGS and NOAA Fisheries personnel. Explanations on how and when these two new tools will be used to assess the effectiveness of the work being proposed are needed as the status and future plans for RM&E for the project are unclear.

The sponsors participate in a number of local working groups including the Mill Creek, Oregon Solutions, Priority Projects, and Lower Walla Walla working groups and are also active members in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board and the Regional Technical Team. Some discussion of how local partners affect the Riverine Ecosystem Planning approach employed by the sponsors to prioritize habitat restoration areas is needed. Once projects have been identified, the River Restoration Analysis Tool (RiverRat) that was developed by the USFWS and NMFS is used to plan, design, and implement selected projects.

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

An impressive number of projects have been implemented including conservation easements, land purchases, and passage improvements. Since its inception the project has completed 13 habitat restoration projects and is currently working on an additional four projects. Ten of these increased habitat complexity by replanting native vegetation, installing fencing, reconnecting the floodplain to the stream and enhancing riparian areas. An additional four projects were directed toward improving fish passage and three others were largely instituted to protect existing habitat from development. The sponsors provided short summaries of results and photo points for each ongoing project. These summaries were instructive, but more information would have been helpful. What percentage of the Walla Walla River system accessible to anadromous salmonids, for instance, has been affected by restoration projects? What is the distribution of existing and planned projects, and can they be connected to build a linked network of functioning stream and riparian environments? Additional quantitative information, especially on fish response, would have also improved the discussion.

The sponsor’s state that with additional funding provided through the Accords Agreement they were able to improve their restoration planning process. This is a positive step and is adaptive because it undoubtedly draws on past planning and implementation experience. A number of other adaptive management actions have also occurred. Originally restoration efforts were not directly linked to primary limiting factors, now they are. Additionally, tools like LiDAR, FLIR, topographic and bathymetric surveys, physical habitat surveys, riparian inventories, hyporheic assessments, and hydraulic modeling are now being used to plan and design projects. Project Administration has also changed, now before a project is started a five-step process is put in place that establishes goals, time lines, organizes planning teams, and ensures that proper permits are obtained. Finally, the knowledge gained from ongoing habitat restoration activities is being applied to new projects, not just in the Walla Walla subbasin but in the John Day, Umatilla, and Grande Ronde as well.

Evaluation of Results

For over 180 years the Walla Walla River basin has been impacted by anthropogenic impacts that have ranged from dam construction, dewatering due to irrigation, channel simplification, levee construction, logging and splash dam use, and over grazing. These impacts caused the extirpation of spring Chinook in 1925 and in the late 1990’s Walla Walla River summer steelhead and bull trout were listed as threatened by the ESA. Prior to the establishment of the 2008 Accords, the CTUIR had performed a number of localized restoration actions. After the Accords were established funds were available for larger projects. Once this occurred, lengthy assessment and design phases were started. Pre-project metrics that are being measured include: acres of riparian forest, percentage of floodplain available to the stream under various flows, percentage of streambed that can be used for spawning and rearing, and total stream length vs. valley length. After a project is completed these metrics are measured again, typically once every three to five years.

Additionally, the tribe instituted its First Foods paradigm and coupled this with its River Vision plan. This approach has been used to guide all subsequent restoration actions. In response to concerns raised by the ISRP in previous reviews, the sponsors developed a bio-monitoring and a physical habitat assessment plan. Both were recently completed, and the ISRP has reviewed the bio-monitoring plan. It is hoped that these M&E plans will be used to assess the effectiveness of the proposed projects.

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

The sponsors list a number of agencies and organizations with whom they are coordinating, but they do not describe in any detail the nature of the coordination. For example, do the projects share data or participate together in planning, implementing, or monitoring projects?

Two emerging limiting factors were identified, climate change and aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Climate models predict that winter precipitation will shift from snow to rain and that will cause lower summer flows to occur. Additionally higher peak flows and warmer water temperatures are expected. The middle and lower parts of the Walla Walla River will be most impacted by these changes. Currently the hydrograph and water temperatures in these parts of the river are primarily controlled by irrigation withdrawals. Climate change will likely alter irrigation needs, and this may worsen the impacts of irrigation on flow and temperature. As water temperatures warm, invasive predaceous fish species are expected to expand into areas that presently have cools waters. Terrestrial noxious weeds may also expand.

No specific actions to deal with expanding non-native predator populations or altered water use patterns are mentioned. Instead, the approach taken to meet these emerging challenges is to expand habitat resilience by increasing natural and self-sustaining processes in floodplain and riparian habitats. The degree of resiliency each project might provide is best determined by biological and physical habitat monitoring efforts designed to measure habitat diversity, connectivity, and fish use among other attributes. Thus the implementation and consistent use of such monitoring programs should be regarded as key component for each proposed habitat restoration action.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has eight deliverables. Seven of them are explicit habitat restoration projects that address one or more of the project’s five objectives. For example, five of the projects, Kentch, Middle Walla Walla Fish Passage, Tumalum Levee setback, Bolan-Kelly, and South Fork Touchet River Habitat Enhancement address the objective of making the stream channel more complex. Four of the above projects are also being performed to connect streams to their floodplains and to enhance riparian zones, another project objective. Fish passage enhancement and improvement in water quality are two additional objectives that are being met by several of the proposed projects. The non-project deliverable is to contribute cost-share funds to in-basin habitat work being led by other partners. Overall, the deliverables are described only in general terms, nearly all are in the early planning stage. While many of them are relatively straightforward, it is difficult to assess their technical merit without more site-specific details. It is clear that a lot of planning will be required before most of the actions can be implemented.

The ISRP also wishes that implementation of an effectiveness monitoring program across the subbasin and its neighbors would move at a faster pace. We called for an integrated action effectiveness monitoring program at our last review and project sponsors agreed that one was needed. We continue to believe that monitoring action effectiveness remains one of the most pressing needs in both the Walla Walla and Umatilla subbasins, and we hope that one can be completed and implemented soon.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

One RM&E protocol, Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Restoration Monitoring Plan, was cited. It has twenty methods some of which are fairly well developed while others are lacking explanations for how a procedure should occur. The protocol and methods cited appear to be appropriate for the types of data that will be collected.

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

The issues can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.

 

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:19:32 AM.

The sponsors provided a reasonable response to some of the ISRP's comments but not to others. The sponsors adequately addressed ISRP comments related to objectives, reach prioritization, landowner permission to conduct projects, and information transfer. The sponsors provided little more information on project effectiveness than they did in the original proposal, basically citing monitoring results from a single project (which was insightful and indicated progress toward success) rather than providing a comprehensive quantitative synthesis across all projects. Because of the lack of presentation of comprehensive, quantitative results it is difficult to assess the success of this project.

The ISRP remains concerned about the lack of fish monitoring. The sponsors apparently do not feel that measuring parameters related to fish production at the project level is necessary. Their rationale is that changes in salmonid abundance for an individual project could result from any number of factors not related to habitat restoration activities and argue that effectiveness is best determined at the subbasin or tributary scale. This view is somewhat perplexing because the sponsors mentioned in the section in the original proposal entitled "Parameters currently being monitored and analyzed over time" that monitoring fish populations was a standard part of their project assessments. One way of assessing impacts of extraneous factors at the site level is to employ unrestored reference reaches to serve as a comparison with restored reaches. The sponsors mentioned the use of reference reaches several times in the proposal, but they did not describe the reference reaches or even clearly indicate if they would actually make use of them.

It would be relatively simple to add some monitoring of fish response, and to take a more active part in the development of habitat effectiveness evaluation in the basin. The sponsors could develop a cost-effective program with help from a statistical team in creating a design.

Qualification: More effort should be placed on monitoring fish response to habitat changes. Monitoring all projects may not be necessary, but the sponsors do need some plan at an appropriate watershed/subbasin scale to determine the effectiveness of the projects. To assess effectiveness, the sponsors should try to identify reference reaches to compare with restored reaches.