The sponsors have made a creditable effort to respond to the ISRP's requests and concerns. Many of the ISRP's concerns had to do with coordination among the various organizations involved in habitat restoration in this watershed and the relationship between RM&E activities and the projects implementing habitat projects. These concerns were adequately addressed. The responses and the links to relevant documents provided reassurance that OSHIP has well reasoned and methodical approaches for setting goals relevant to ESU viability parameters (e.g., EDT life history models and spawner targets by stream) and for selecting projects based on limiting factors and feasibility. In particular, the response clarified the complementary roles of UCSRB and OBMEP in setting objectives and in monitoring results, respectively.

One area where the project sponsors could profitably direct some attention is the development of quantitative habitat objectives. The current objective is expressed as a desired percentage improvement in habitat quality, but the specifics of what this level of improvement actually means on the ground were not specified. Given the data being collected under the OBMEP program and the availability of the EDT model for this watershed, more specific habitat objectives could be produced. These quantitative objectives would be useful for evaluating progress against broader-scale objectives, evaluating the relationship of habitat condition to biological response, and updating the project prioritization lists. Specific habitat objectives also are essential for adaptive management.

The sponsors also might consider working with OBMEP to ensure that enough project-scale monitoring is occurring to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different restoration options. It is not clear to what extent the habitat response to individual projects is being assessed, but this information could be critically important for improving the efficiency of the restoration program moving forward.

The adequacy of specific strategies for improving water quantity and temperature should be considered (or modeled) under a range of plausible future scenarios (as per ISRP request #5). In general, the response was fine concerning the expected directions of climate change. However, the ISRP would like to better understand specific actions/strategies being considered or implemented to maintain biologically meaningful in-stream flow. A short report should be submitted within 6 months for review by the ISRP. This report should address the mechanics of obtaining the water as well as a frank assessment of the willingness of those controlling the water sources to make suitable arrangements so that OSHIP can maintain adequate in-stream flows. For example, over the period covered by this proposal, how much water is needed, where will the needed water be obtained, and what is the potential contribution from each source? What plans or strategies are in place to obtain this water? How much of the needed water is projected to come from conservation agreements, how much from sealing stream substrates, and how much from other potential sources?

A response is requested to:

1) Clarify the problem to be solved and present evidence to support or rank hypotheses about the stated limiting factors.

2) Quantify the objectives and explain the choice and sequence of actions being proposed to achieve the objectives.

3) Quantify the deliverables so that it would be possible, in principle, to demonstrate success or failure of implementation and compliance.

4) Explain how this project would monitor and evaluate or link with other projects to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of its actions, and the outcomes for fish status.

5) Evaluate how proposed actions to secure more cool water for juvenile rearing might succeed or fail under a range of plausible climate change scenarios.

6) Justify the proposed budget of $100,000 per year for vehicles. Although not a scientific issue, this cost ($500,000 over five years) seems large and warrants explanation.

The proposal should also be revised to include the information requested above and to address other issues outlined below.

This proposal fails to provide a coherent description of current status and factors limiting population viability of anadromous salmonids in the Okanogan Subbasin. The problem statement should establish the relevance of the selected restoration sites to Viable Salmon Population (VSP) parameters of abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution for the endangered steelhead ESU and other species as appropriate. It should indicate how restoration at these specific locations will help to meet the RPA 35 obligations and goals identified in the Subbasin Plan. As it is, the proposal does not demonstrate that the tributaries to be restored would contribute much in terms of ESA recovery for steelhead or restoration of fisheries for summer/fall Chinook and other species.

This project includes a very ambitious set of restoration activities. Most of the proposed activities appear to address some of the generic limiting factors identified in the Subbasin Plan, for example temperature, sediment, and habitat complexity. But reasons for addressing these problems at the specific project sites are not provided. Additional detail on the project prioritization process being used by OSHIP should be included in the proposal. 

This proposal should explain the relationships among the multiple habitat programs including the Upper Columbia Habitat Program and the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Funding Board Program that are identifying and implementing restoration projects in the Okanogan River watershed. Even if other programs access funds from different sources, all restoration programs in the watershed should be fully coordinated, with compatible processes for prioritization, so that complementary projects are selected.

In addition, the relationship between OSHIP and Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program (OBMEP) should be described. The proposal indicated that OSHIP was conducting some project-scale effectiveness monitoring. The design and methods being used for this task were not described. The proposal also should describe how the project-scale monitoring is aligned with the OBMEP efforts.

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

The proposal does not adequately explain its significance to regional programs. The Okanogan Subbasin plan and the Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan are cited, but the linkage is not clearly summarized in a way that can be reviewed easily. The executive summary states that the purpose of OSHIP is "to implement a sequenced set of key habitat and protective actions." This sequence is not described or justified in the body of the proposal.

The problem statement is inadequately developed. Background should be provided about the current status and abundance of the target species in the project area to support inferences about what factors currently limit salmonid viability and production.

The proposal does not explain the extent to which this project will be coordinated with the Upper Columbia Habitat Programmatic or the Upper Columbia SRFB, both of which are identifying and funding projects in the Okanogan River watershed. Restoration of anadromous fishes in the Okanogan system would be most efficient if all these oversight programs were well aligned.

The objectives are clear, but they are not quantitative because they lack criteria for success or time lines for achievement. The objectives are not presented as part of an overall strategy that indicates an appropriate sequence of actions. Given the wealth of information that has been collected on this watershed, especially over the last few years with the initiation of the Okanogan monitoring program, these objectives could be site specific and quantitative.

Based on resumes provided in the proposal, the ISRP wonders whether CCTAFD personnel have the overall expertise to oversee and successfully complete many of the actions proposed, and whether advisory teams will be assembled to assist the technical and managerial staff. That said, the sizeable budget for professional meetings and training seems appropriate.

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

The proposal includes a long list of activities undertaken through this project since 2008. These activities appear to have been identified by habitat assessment based on data collected by the OBMEP project. It would have been useful if results of this assessment had been summarized in the proposal. As it stands, the results section contains too little detail to evaluate the extent of accomplishments or their impact. Many of these projects are still underway such that evaluation might be premature. Even so, no data or evidence of monitoring are presented to instill confidence that the efforts are producing useful results.

The proposal section on adaptive management simply states that the project sponsors have been identifying stream reaches where additional flow would be beneficial to steelhead. No plan for adaptive management is articulated, and this omission needs to be corrected. Given the potential availability of habitat and fish data in this system, this project could implement a very powerful adaptive management process. Project priorities should be reviewed annually using new information on the effectiveness of projects implemented previously.

Evaluation of Results

OSHIP was authorized in 2007 but did not begin until 2008 in conjunction with the Fish Accords.

Research conducted by the CCTAFD indicates that water flow in most tributaries of the Okanogan River that support steelhead is over allocated for irrigation, such that water is now a principal limiting factor. Accordingly, the goals of OSHIP have shifted to acquiring more water flow for juvenile rearing. Even so, the proposal contains no explicit plan for adaptive management. 

Too little detail is provided in the proposal about fish or environmental monitoring to evaluate the extent of accomplishments or their impact. No fish response data are provided.

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

Project relationships are described only briefly. At a minimum, some description of the relationship between this project and other habitat funding programs operating in the Okanogan River watershed should be provided. How does each entity interface with the proposed project? What are the details of the relationships for specific restoration actions and goals? One would hope that these various efforts are closely coordinated to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure activities are complementary. 

It seems that OSHIP is the main driver of steelhead habitat restoration in the United States portion of the Okanogan River but works with other partners including Trout Unlimited, The Okanogan Conservation District, Washington Water Trust, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, OSHIP also funds planning and design for projects in the Canadian portion of the Okanagan River while Chelan, Douglas and Grant Count PUDs provide implementation funding.

The proposal states that limited effectiveness monitoring is done by OSHIP, and that status and trend monitoring and evaluation of changes in habitat conditions is covered by the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program. Details of this monitoring are inadequately described in this proposal. Project-scale evaluations should be fully integrated with the OBMEP program to ensure maximum benefit from the results.

Discussion of emerging limiting factors is scant and the meaning of the term may have been misinterpreted. OSHIP is focusing on opportunities for accessing water and habitats that are cooler than the mainstem Okanogan River, presumably in recognition of current limiting factors and predictions for climate change. However, potential climate change impacts on system hydrology are not addressed. What is needed is a discussion of (or some explicit modeling to determine) whether enough cool water can be secured under a plausible climate change scenario to provide reassurance that the odds of success are reasonable. Approaches to gain insights into future flows do exist, and these insights can help shape restoration strategies and actions. Scenario analyses have been used to inform and improve existing flow restoration and habitat projects (see Donley et al. 2012. Global Change Biology (2012), doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02773.x). As one example, it is ecologically advantageous to assess through simulations the sensitivity of late summer (July, August, and September) flows to various scenarios involving changes in the following variables, singly or in combination: climate, the quantity of water used for irrigation, and water resource policy. Flows can be modeled using the Water Evaluation and Planning system (WEAP; as well as other modeling platforms) under historical and projected conditions (for example, 2020 and 2040) for each scenario.

The proposal does not include consideration of other important factors, for example toxic agricultural chemicals, future water withdrawals for agriculture, hatchery impacts, and non-native species invasions and predation. Each of these factors is important, and has the potential to undermine costly restoration efforts. Accordingly, some consideration of these factors should be incorporated into the project selection process.

The list of focal species is surprisingly short given the scope of the proposed restoration work. Lamprey, other trout, mussels and riparian birds are not mentioned. Are there other species or ecological groups to be concerned about or which could benefit from the proposed actions?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The 19 deliverables listed in the proposal all address issues relevant to the primary limiting factors identified in the Subbasin Plan and consistent with the stated objectives. However, the deliverables are not quantitative and seem more like goals than deliverables. Without more detail, it would be impossible to determine later, whether a project component had succeeded or failed. 

Some additional explanation of the project prioritization process would have been helpful in reviewing the proposal, especially given the sizable funding request. Why were these actions chosen as top priorities? What are the expected outcomes in terms of fish recovery? These expectations should be included as criteria, along with timelines for achieving them. The lack of detail and prioritization diminishes confidence that useful outcomes can or will be achieved.

Further, without any direct monitoring for effectiveness, it will not be possible to determine if specific work elements and metrics are the best for specific situations, or if the work elements and metrics need to be modified in any way. The lack of effectiveness monitoring is a major oversight.

Note that none of the 19 deliverables are listed as supporting Objective 6 (Habitat Protection).

A large proportion of the budget is for land and water acquisitions, but no details or justification are provided on what properties or rights will be purchased or leased, the priorities and rationale for acquisition, or how these actions relate to specific fish or wildlife goals. Further, in the budget, rent/utilities are traditionally overhead costs and no justification is provided for the large annual expenditures on vehicles.

Professional publications in a refereed journal should be listed as a deliverable. It is important for large scale projects, like this one, to provide leadership in the broader restoration community.

Two resumes are missing.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 9:45:09 AM.

This is a proposal to fund the Colville Confederated Tribes to implement restoration and protection actions in the Okanogan Subbasin Plan. The implementation of this plan is a high priority. This proposal may require clarifications and adjustments by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA. The broad scope of the proposal made it difficult for the ISRP to assess the potential impact of particular Assessment Unit (AU) Actions, or their combined effect. The proponents might have made some effort to rank the likely relative magnitudes of effects on fish and wildlife of particular AU actions. That would help determine which of the proposed AU Actions might be most worth saving in the event that budgets are reduced. The proposal narrative would have been improved by inclusion of Tasks (work elements) and methods provided on the administrative forms.

A short summary of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which are to be covered by Colville project 200302200, should be included in the final proposal narrative or statement of work. Resumes are provided for only two of the proposed key personnel. No FTEs are provided. The majority of the work will be performed by contractors under the supervision of the project proponents. The administrative form provides details on an excellent plan for information transfer, but this is mentioned only in a very general way in the proposal narrative. The proposal narrative would have been improved by a discussion of potential adverse effects and precautions regarding non-focal species.