1. Objectives and outcomes 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) have restored 8,849 acres in the South Touchet Watershed of the Walla Walla River subbasin. The Summary provides a general mission statement, but the 2015 Management Plan includes a series of goals and objectives. The objectives are linked to explicit Desired Future Conditions (DFC) that are derived from historical range of variability and have explicit timelines. The quantifiable objectives and timelines could be streamlined to a few primary objectives and the remaining objectives that are related but less central could be followed more opportunistically. Strategies for reaching desired conditions and timelines for when these outcomes are expected are also described in the Management Plan. Benefits to fish and wildlife and habitat due to project actions are consistent with the objectives in the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. 

One of the hallmarks of the Rainwater Project is that it is based on both ecological goals and cultural goals, which are linked in the Umatilla River Vision and its concept of First Foods. Specific First Foods are identified for each component of the Desired Future Conditions. This is a valuable framework for conservation and restoration of tribal lands and could become a central component in the monitoring and evaluation efforts of the project. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

The Summary Report and 2015 Management Plan provide detailed discussions of the actions that have been implemented to date. The Umatilla River Vision and the 2015 Management Plan provide explicit explanations of the ecological and cultural relationships on which their restoration and conservation actions have been designed. A good deal of thought and effort to design and implement monitoring is tied to most management activities. Monitoring appears to be well designed, uses standard methods and is analyzed and reported to help assess effectiveness of management actions. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The Rainwater Project has developed a substantial M&E program. One of the strongest aspects of the Rainwater project is the link between their objectives (Desired Future Conditions) and the First Foods as described in the Umatilla River Vision. The Project could develop explicit monitoring of the First Foods or indices of the First Foods and report them as outcomes and measures of both ecological and cultural success. This innovative approach could be a model for other groups. 

The Summary provides examples of project actions that have occurred to reach its Desired Future Conditions. For example, in the project’s riparian habitats, long-term trends in water temperature and steelhead redd abundance are being tracked. Juvenile salmonid abundance is also being examined by using electrofishing and snorkel surveys. The suitability of the river bottom and associated floodplains for beaver was determined using LiDAR, 2-D maps, digital elevation models and a tree height/canopy model. Two hundred and thirty-one acres of river bottom were considered to be highly suitable for beaver re-colonization. The South Touchet Road runs parallel to the stream and delivered sediment to the stream. A new road offset from the stream was built. During a subsequent repair of this new road the proponents used the Washington State Road Surface Erosion Model (WARSEM) to identify where “spot rocking” should occur to reduce sediment inputs. This action reduced the road’s discharge of sediment into the South Touchet by 83%. 

A summary table, such as they used for Desired Future Conditions in the 2015 Management Plan, would be useful for readers and reviewers. One of the major successes of the Project was a 5-6°C decrease in stream temperature in the South Touchet. The interpretation of this trend could be strengthened by comparison with reference systems in the region and statistical analysis of the data. The project contracted to document the response of fish densities and redd counts to restoration actions. Even though densities were 2.5 times greater in the treated reach, the difference was not statistically significant. A modified experimental design may be required to detect trends in highly variable metrics (both spatially and temporally). The relative scale of the treatments to the scale of fish distributions and movement may confound the analysis. Monitoring of plant communities and invasive weeds has documented a lack of success in reducing the relative abundance of non-native plants. In particular, yellow starthistle is an ongoing challenge, especially in steep, remote areas. 

Although streams were surveyed in 1999, they have not been re-surveyed, apparently due to high bids for contract resurveying. This need was also noted in the 2009 ISRP Review. This is an important activity given nearly two decades of protection and management under the project Management Plan. Also, such an effort would complement action effectiveness monitoring activities for restoration projects and also would provide additional insights into the apparent decline in stream water temperatures that were noted in the Summary Report. 

The project has performed bird point counts in three habitats, grassland-forest, mixed conifer forest, and riparian woodland. The grassland-forest and mixed conifer forest were impacted by the Columbia Complex Fire that occurred in 2006. The proponents were able to evaluate the impacts of the fire on songbird diversity in these two habitats. 

The Project has the opportunity to expand the monitoring program even further by working with local universities to encourage the use of their site by graduate students or field classes. Given the location between Washington State University, Eastern Oregon University, Whitman, Gonzaga, and University of Idaho, the project could present programs at the universities to attract useful research and monitoring projects. The project could partner with citizen science programs in the region, such as Ducks Unlimited or Trout Unlimited. The managers know their sites very well and can use their education and outreach efforts to create ongoing partnerships to provide evaluations of the status and trends of critical objectives, effectiveness of their management actions, and unforeseen challenges. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

The Rainwater Project has observed beneficial decreases in water temperature in the South Touchet. Fish abundances and redd counts have not changed (either increased or decreased) and remain highly variable. Burning attempts have not had major effects on non-native plants, but a stronger study design will be used in 2017. Plant community composition has responded favorably in some locations, but non-native invasive plants remain a challenge. The Summary identified challenges and alternatives that are being explored. 

The proponents performed two major habitat restoration actions in the South Touchet River. In one case, 5,000 feet of stream was restored by using log structures and boulders to induce stream complexity and create salmonid habitat. Riparian vegetation was enhanced by plantings of aspen and conifers. In the other rehabilitation project a bridge and levee that were constricting the stream were modified. This opened up two side channels and increased floodplain connectivity. Monitoring of juvenile salmonid use was performed in the restored area as well as in a control area to quantify the effects of these actions. 

The Program has attempted restore the project’s grasslands through novel approaches to control noxious weeds, such as Yellow Starthistle, by goat grazing. The introduction of a weevil species to control the thistle is also being evaluated via monitoring programs. Upland forests have been thinned to produce mature forests with shrub understories that will provide benefits to deer, elk, and song birds. This work is being guided by the Forest Projection System (FPS) and the Stand Visualization System (SVS). Sound monitoring designs are being implemented to track changes in upland forests after thinning has occurred. 

Starting from a well-organized and comprehensive management plan, to clearly stated Desired Future Conditions (management objectives) for a variety of habitat conditions, this project appears to be organized and managed to provide benefits to fish and wildlife resources. There is excellent linkage between terrestrial resource management and that for riparian and aquatic species. The project employs a watershed scale, “ridge top to valley bottom” management approach. 

It is clear that the project is developing and implementing new methods to address management issues. It is not clear, however, if the project has a formal adaptive management process in place. Such a plan could be used to simultaneously track status and trends in Desired Future Conditions and evaluate outcomes of novel management approaches. The addition of quantitative objectives with timelines would also help the proponents track whether they are on schedule to meet their Desired Future Condition goals.

The protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. This project is one of the few that includes efforts to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration. The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented (see below).

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The project sponsors provide a strong technical justification for this project. Habitat types represented on the project area, including grasslands and riparian wetlands, are poorly represented in the Walla Walla Subbasin as a whole due to human activities. Very few of the remaining areas that do support these habitat types are protected. Therefore, the protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. There was a bit of confusion regarding the priority of the project streams for steelhead and Chinook in the Technical Justification section. The authors indicate that stream reaches in the project area were prioritized as 12th for steelhead and 15th for Chinook out of 47 stream reaches in the subbasin (page 2 of narrative). But in the following sentence they indicate that the priority ratings were 10th for steelhead and 3rd for Chinook. Either rating establishes the significance of the aquatic habitats at the Rainwater project area, but this seeming discrepancy should be resolved.

The Rainwater Wildlife Area Project is closely linked with other projects in the subbasin and takes advantage of some subbasin-scale monitoring programs to generate information relevant to the effectiveness of the restoration measures being implemented at Rainwater. In particular, the linkage with the Walla Walla Basin Natural Fish Production and Monitoring and Evaluation Project provides very complete information on the response of salmonid fishes to restoration at the Rainwater Wildlife Area.

2. Project History and Results
Significant progress has been made in expanding and enhancing habitat at the Rainwater Project Area since its establishment in 1998. The evolution of the project since its inception is clearly presented in this section.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The Objectives, Work Elements and Methods are appropriate for this project. Most activities are focused on the maintenance of the area and implementation of new habitat enhancement measures (especially related to the improvement of upland habitats). But the objectives and methods for the M&E program also are well designed.

A large part of the work is devoted to project management and administration. The sponsors should continue to investigate new techniques to accomplish, reduce, or eliminate maintenance and administrative tasks over the long term. Note that in work element 11, methods of biological monitoring and evaluation, were not provided.

4. M&E
The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. HEP measurements are augmented with supplemental measurements of habitat and vegetation response to restoration treatments, constituting effectiveness monitoring. These data should provide a relatively good picture of changes in habitat quality over time. In addition, this project is one of the few that includes an effort to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration.

There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented.

1) Stream habitat surveys were conducted in 1999-2000 but have not been repeated. A new habitat survey is planned for 2009-2010. More frequent habitat assessments would provide a more sensitive gauge of habitat response to restoration efforts. These surveys do not have to be annual but they should be repeated at least every five years and after major disturbance events. A repeat survey after the 2006 fire would have been informative.

2) Annual monitoring of juvenile fish populations is an M&E element that is very rarely included in project M&E plans. Its inclusion in this project is a real strength of the M&E effort for aquatic habitats. The inclusion of juvenile index sites outside the project area in 2004 will provide some context for interpreting annual changes in fish abundance at the index sites in the project area. However, it appears that the index sites are not sampled consistently. The data presented in Table 4 indicates that some index sites within the project area are sampled in one year and a different set sampled the next year. These data also suggest that the "control" reaches outside the project area were only sampled in 2004. The primary purpose for collecting these data is to determine if there is a temporal trend in fish populations. Therefore, the same set of reaches should be sampled each year (or on some consistent schedule) and the "control" reaches should be sampled on this same schedule. It is not noted in the narrative whether habitat restoration projects have been implemented at any of the juvenile abundance index sites. If not, one or two sites where projects have been implemented should be added.

The protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. This project is one of the few that includes efforts to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration. The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented (see below). 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The project sponsors provide a strong technical justification for this project. Habitat types represented on the project area, including grasslands and riparian wetlands, are poorly represented in the Walla Walla Subbasin as a whole due to human activities. Very few of the remaining areas that do support these habitat types are protected. Therefore, the protection and enhancement of these habitats at the Rainwater project area makes a significant contribution to the ecological health of the subbasin. In addition, the stream habitat within the project area has been identified as high priority for steelhead and Chinook salmon in the subbasin plan. There was a bit of confusion regarding the priority of the project streams for steelhead and Chinook in the Technical Justification section. The authors indicate that stream reaches in the project area were prioritized as 12th for steelhead and 15th for Chinook out of 47 stream reaches in the subbasin (page 2 of narrative). But in the following sentence they indicate that the priority ratings were 10th for steelhead and 3rd for Chinook. Either rating establishes the significance of the aquatic habitats at the Rainwater project area, but this seeming discrepancy should be resolved. The Rainwater Wildlife Area Project is closely linked with other projects in the subbasin and takes advantage of some subbasin-scale monitoring programs to generate information relevant to the effectiveness of the restoration measures being implemented at Rainwater. In particular, the linkage with the Walla Walla Basin Natural Fish Production and Monitoring and Evaluation Project provides very complete information on the response of salmonid fishes to restoration at the Rainwater Wildlife Area. 2. Project History and Results Significant progress has been made in expanding and enhancing habitat at the Rainwater Project Area since its establishment in 1998. The evolution of the project since its inception is clearly presented in this section. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The Objectives, Work Elements and Methods are appropriate for this project. Most activities are focused on the maintenance of the area and implementation of new habitat enhancement measures (especially related to the improvement of upland habitats). But the objectives and methods for the M&E program also are well designed. A large part of the work is devoted to project management and administration. The sponsors should continue to investigate new techniques to accomplish, reduce, or eliminate maintenance and administrative tasks over the long term. Note that in work element 11, methods of biological monitoring and evaluation, were not provided. 4. M&E The M&E effort for the Rainwater Wildlife Area is generally well-designed. The effort should provide adequate information on the habitat and population responses to restoration efforts at the project site. HEP measurements are augmented with supplemental measurements of habitat and vegetation response to restoration treatments, constituting effectiveness monitoring. These data should provide a relatively good picture of changes in habitat quality over time. In addition, this project is one of the few that includes an effort to assess the response of fish and wildlife populations to habitat restoration. There are a few areas where improvements in the M&E effort should be implemented. 1) Stream habitat surveys were conducted in 1999-2000 but have not been repeated. A new habitat survey is planned for 2009-2010. More frequent habitat assessments would provide a more sensitive gauge of habitat response to restoration efforts. These surveys do not have to be annual but they should be repeated at least every 5 years and after major disturbance events. A repeat survey after the 2006 fire would have been informative. 2) Annual monitoring of juvenile fish populations is an M&E element that is very rarely included in project M&E plans. Its inclusion in this project is a real strength of the M&E effort for aquatic habitats. The inclusion of juvenile index sites outside the project area in 2004 will provide some context for interpreting annual changes in fish abundance at the index sites in the project area. However, it appears that the index sites are not sampled consistently. The data presented in Table 4 indicates that some index sites within the project area are sampled in one year and a different set sampled the next year. These data also suggest that the "control" reaches outside the project area were only sampled in 2004. The primary purpose for collecting these data is to determine if there is a temporal trend in fish populations. Therefore, the same set of reaches should be sampled each year (or on some consistent schedule) and the "control" reaches should be sampled on this same schedule. It is not noted in the narrative whether habitat restoration projects have been implemented at any of the juvenile abundance index sites. If not, one or two sites where projects have been implemented should be added.

This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria and benefits wildlife. The ISRP, however, suggests that the sponsor address the following comments to improve the project, but the ISRP does not need to see responses to these comments.

The authors could improve the wildlife monitoring portion of this work by more clearly identifying the variables they will use to measure progress. Specifically, the authors could improve the monitoring and evaluation section by more clearly describing the location and placement of vegetation transects, number of vegetation transects, and measurements they will take on these transects. The authors should more clearly identify which bird species (or will they focus only on bird species listed in proposal) that will be recorded on these transects. The authors should more clearly identify the history behind the selection of mitigation bird species (narrative, p.4) and whether or not the species will be monitored and evaluated.

The authors could improve their discussion of bird surveys by identifying why transects will be used only in grassland cover. The ISRP wondered why birds are not surveyed in other cover types. The authors could improve their presentation of monitoring and evaluation of weed control efforts by quantifying weed distribution and abundance pre- and post-treatment with herbicides.

The authors could more directly communicate where past data are located.