This project is well done, especially with their efforts to build and maintain a team of partners from many agencies and groups. As an example of the type of effort, members of the team meet monthly to ensure that all members are aware of impending work, accomplishments, identify special needs, and discuss emerging issues. Additionally, the team has had discussions about their efforts in light of climate change and has discussed options. We commend the personnel on their work and suggest this project could be used as an example for other projects.

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

The sponsors clearly described the significance of their efforts relative to regional programs such as the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2008 BiOp, and the Yakima Subbasin Plan.

The sponsors also strongly made the point that tributary rearing is, for a number of reasons, a life history pattern more beneficial to salmon and steelhead than is mainstem rearing provided the habitat is of high quality and the out-migrants are not entrained in irrigation systems. The ISRP was pleased to see the sponsor’s use of literature citations to support the association between project activities and potential benefits to fish. This could serve as an example for other habitat projects to follow on the use of simple fish metrics to demonstrate benefits as well as the use of literature citations. This approach helps connect the project work to expected benefits for fishery resources.

The five objectives were clearly presented and reasonable.

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

The ISRP appreciated the lengthy, extensive presentation of accomplishments. There are detailed discussions of monitoring and assessing benefits to anadromous and resident fishes. The proposal provided good detail and photos for the several examples of completed projects highlighted in this proposal. Since 2003, YTAHP has implemented 133 projects, screened 190 cfs, and added 217 miles of rearing and spawning habitat.

The review team offers the following as an example of the team’s use of coordinated adaptive management. When an ISRP team member asked the sponsors about their efforts to prioritize and respond to changes, he was told that field personnel rely heavily on Technical Working Groups (TWG) to help prioritize actions. Currently, TWG are most involved during the engineering phase to help ensure that what happens on the ground will meet needs of the fish and habitat, but because of good working relationships, TWGs are often used.

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

One of the strengths of this project is its relationship to other entities in the region. The presentation of emerging limiting factors is well done.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors describe 51 deliverables. The ISRP team was pleased to read the detailed description of work planned and believed this is an indication of team organization. The ISRP also interpreted these descriptions as an indication that there is some acceptance of the program by private landowners.

The ISRP would have appreciated some degree of prioritization among the numerous individual sites to be screened or to receive other project actions. It is not clear that all 51 projects can be completed in the funding cycle.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The ISRP appreciated the sponsor’s inclusion of fish metrics, such as redds, before and after past actions.

This project is well done, especially with their efforts to build and maintain a team of partners from many agencies and groups. As an example of the type of effort, members of the team meet monthly to ensure that all members are aware of impending work, accomplishments, identify special needs, and discuss emerging issues. Additionally, the team has had discussions about their efforts in light of climate change and has discussed options. We commend the personnel on their work and suggest this project could be used as an example for other projects.

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

The sponsors clearly described the significance of their efforts relative to regional programs such as the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2008 BiOp, and the Yakima Subbasin Plan.

The sponsors also strongly made the point that tributary rearing is, for a number of reasons, a life history pattern more beneficial to salmon and steelhead than is mainstem rearing provided the habitat is of high quality and the out-migrants are not entrained in irrigation systems. The ISRP was pleased to see the sponsor’s use of literature citations to support the association between project activities and potential benefits to fish. This could serve as an example for other habitat projects to follow on the use of simple fish metrics to demonstrate benefits as well as the use of literature citations. This approach helps connect the project work to expected benefits for fishery resources.

The five objectives were clearly presented and reasonable.

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

The ISRP appreciated the lengthy, extensive presentation of accomplishments. There are detailed discussions of monitoring and assessing benefits to anadromous and resident fishes. The proposal provided good detail and photos for the several examples of completed projects highlighted in this proposal. Since 2003, YTAHP has implemented 133 projects, screened 190 cfs, and added 217 miles of rearing and spawning habitat.

The review team offers the following as an example of the team’s use of coordinated adaptive management. When an ISRP team member asked the sponsors about their efforts to prioritize and respond to changes, he was told that field personnel rely heavily on Technical Working Groups (TWG) to help prioritize actions. Currently, TWG are most involved during the engineering phase to help ensure that what happens on the ground will meet needs of the fish and habitat, but because of good working relationships, TWGs are often used.

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

One of the strengths of this project is its relationship to other entities in the region. The presentation of emerging limiting factors is well done.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors describe 51 deliverables. The ISRP team was pleased to read the detailed description of work planned and believed this is an indication of team organization. The ISRP also interpreted these descriptions as an indication that there is some acceptance of the program by private landowners.

The ISRP would have appreciated some degree of prioritization among the numerous individual sites to be screened or to receive other project actions. It is not clear that all 51 projects can be completed in the funding cycle.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The ISRP appreciated the sponsor’s inclusion of fish metrics, such as redds, before and after past actions.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:22:56 PM.

This project is in its early years and has the potential to produce some valuable information to guide further projects. The sponsors provided a good summary of passage work. However, there was no effort made in the proposal to translate the structural changes being made in these tributaries into biological changes and the project proposal did not contain an adequate description of benefits to fish populations. The response was very thin in terms of realized or potential benefits to fish. The sponsors are referred to Marmorek et al (2004) (see below) for specific information and methods to assess effectiveness of screening in the Yakima River basin. Reporting of past results was diffused throughout the narrative.

The sponsors concurred with the ISRP that M&E is needed and a newly created Monitoring Plan (submitted to BPA last year) was included in the response. In the response they state that in the near future empirical data will be available to show actual benefits to steelhead and other fish species. However, the commitment to monitoring for benefits to fish still appears tentative. Statements in the response such as, "As long as project sites provide a fish friendly environment, habitat improvements are maintained, and the structures are functioning as intended and meeting the needs of water users/landowners/operators, projects will be considered successful." Another statement, "It is generally assumed that removal of fish passage barriers and correctly designed fish passage structures leads to reestablished access for salmonids" indicates that the sponsors need to be encouraged to include biologically oriented monitoring in addition to engineering indicators of success. One part of the monitoring plan will focus on selected tributaries, which harks to an index stream approach rather than the highly regarded probabilistic approach. Guidance may be required to make sure the proponents use appropriate monitoring methods. Perhaps there is scope to use the Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program as a demonstration project to develop and use realistic and cost-effective monitoring protocols that could be used elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin.

This Fundable recommendation is Qualified to indicate that a better monitoring protocol should be developed so project staff can report on fish results. In developing the monitoring design they should consider a probabilistic design, rather than an index stream approach. The ISRP will look for better reporting in the next review. This monitoring can be done through another agency/entity, but the sponsors should describe those efforts and report the results.

Reference: Marmorek et al 2004. A Multiple Watershed Approach to Assessing the Effects of Habitat Restoration Actions on Anadromous and Resident Fish Populations. 420 p. (efw.bpa.gov/publications/H00012481-1.pdf).

This proposal and its companion 20070200 are viewed by the ISRP as not fundable (Qualified) because these two projects have a history of the sponsor failing to give evidence of fish benefits. This "Not fundable" recommendation is qualified because, in general, adding flow and removing barriers and screening diversion have the potential to be beneficial to fish populations. However, the response by the sponsors did not provide an adequate reply to the ISRP's concerns:

(a) Please provide a brief summary of current use of the project area by steelhead and resident trout species. What specific benefits for them are anticipated as a result of this project?(b) There is inadequate mention of monitoring and evaluation. It is not likely that project personnel would provide the M&E, but they should describe coverage from other projects or agencies. The proponents should be thinking about baseline biological studies to measure project effectiveness. (c) This proposal is directly related to the currently considered proposal 200702000 to increase flow, which would complement the screening work. To what extent do achieving substantial benefits to fish depend upon both issues (screening and flow enhancement) being addressed?

The sponsors note that coordination with Yakima Species Interaction Study, for long-term rainbow trout monitoring, will be essential to measure project effectiveness. However, not enough information is presented to determine the nature of any coordination. The sponsors assert that "correction of the passage barriers would allow access for both juvenile and adult upstream migration of summer steelhead, rainbow trout and other resident species to an additional 10 miles of habitat above the uppermost diversion during most of the year," but there are no plans to monitor for this occurrence. The engineering aspects of the project are well described but the link to biological response is lacking. It is not possible for reviewers to assess the extent to which the project will benefit anadromous fish. The ISRP was expecting a summary of how the recovered habitat would be used (e.g., what life history stages would use?). Without this kind of information the proposal retains the characteristics of a strictly engineering/hydrology project, and the ISRP has to take it on faith that there will be a benefit to fish.

A revised narrative was provided that appeared to contain more detail on construction scope and scheduling. The issue of the extent to which this project will benefit fish without implementation of the instream flow enhancement (in the new, separate proposal 200702000) was not addressed.

The link with project 200300100 is made clearer in the response and the sequential nature of the two efforts (screening followed by flow enhancement) makes sense, but when this proposal and project 200300100 are considered together the ISRP maintains its concern that the projected benefits to the target fish species of the irrigation diversion screening and the experimental flow pulse are inadequately monitored. Therefore, this proposal is ranked Not Fundable because of its weak monitoring and evaluation section; however, the proposal does rate a "Qualified" because adding flow, removing barriers, and screening diversions are all actions that have the potential to be beneficial to fish populations. We encourage the project sponsors to re-submit the two proposals (next time combined) with a stronger biological monitoring component at the next solicitation.

The response addressed some of the ISRP's questions and project sponsors have demonstrated a willingness to alter their proposal in a beneficial way. In particular, their willingness to approach the flow pulse as an experiment is worthwhile, although the revision provides no more specific details about how the experiment would be conducted than the original proposal (e.g., what would be the control situation?). Actual experimental design is left to future planning. Assurances that that the conserved water would be dedicated to increasing stream flow is a critical item that was not well described in the initial proposal but was made clear in the response. There was a good faith effort to estimate the surface flow savings for Manastash Creek, although admittedly the estimate was somewhat crude. It was helpful that the project sponsors stated all additional flow would be dedicated to the WDOE's water trust program.

The response does describe water quality monitoring, but it does not address the ISRP's strong suggestion that steelhead use of the watershed be studied in order to help evaluate the pulse flow treatment. We believe this should be a critical part of the work and encourage the sponsors to work with other stakeholders to ensure that an effective steelhead monitoring program is formulated. Although we do not recommend the project for funding at this time, we believe it can be successfully accomplished as an adaptive management experiment with clear treatments and controls coupled with development of an adequate biological monitoring effort.