The proponents coordinate their restoration activities with a broad range of experts and stakeholders in the Yakima Basin, thereby enhancing probability of success. The proponents  propose to continue their ongoing effort to 1) eliminate salmonid mortality caused by impingement and entrainment into surface water diversions; 2) restore habitat connectivity by providing fish passage at man-made barrier; 3) improve degraded instream habitat resulting in enhanced spawning and rearing habitat for ESA-listed Middle Columbia Steelhead and other native salmonids; 4) restore riparian habitat and function to increase shading, reduce stream temperature, and improve water quality; and 5) complete inventories in key tributaries targeted for salmon and steelhead restoration to identify fish passage and screening needs. The project is well formulated with a strong set of objectives and actions. The project conducts presence/absence monitoring of fishes in the project area, and this low-effort fish monitoring appears to be of some value for evaluating project success. The project relies upon other projects to document trends in steelhead and salmon throughout the basin, but the project needs to demonstrate its linkage more fully to the biological monitoring efforts being done by related projects (e.g., BPA projects 199506325 and 201003000) to understand the fish response and success of their actions.

A summary of project results since 2002, including the project site map, indicates successful completion of many projects in the Yakima subbasin. This long-running project has focused work on passage, flow, and habitat. It has a large geographic. It does a variety of project types and of note is that a lot of work focuses on barriers, which are high reward, low risk type of projects. The project has been successful at what it does and has leveraged other funding to do work. The work encompasses a wide variety of projects and involves many partners. The project funds a group of local conservation entities to do the actual work. Since its inception, the project has restored access to 238 stream miles, planted 16.6 miles of riparian habitat, and secured 69 cfs of water rights for fish.

For this funding cycle, the project is proposing to do 28 projects that they list in an informative spreadsheet. The projects are prioritized, and it is clear they can shift projects using this spreadsheet if warranted. One concern is that proposed projects are mostly on small tributaries. Is there a reason why larger tributaries such as the Teanaway are not being considered? The proponent has a system for project selection, but few details are provided. A description of Priority Index Numbers and how they are derived would be helpful because that seems key to the prioritization. Also, do they incorporate any fish potential such as capacity? One confounding factor in project selection that should at least be considered is other issues in some of the streams they are working on. For example, it is highly likely some of these systems have water quality and stream temperature issues that affect how they are used by the fish. 

The project does some implementation monitoring on some projects, but the subbasin-scale monitoring is covered by other projects. This is extremely important because it makes it possible to assess the aggregate response to multiple projects in a single tributary.

The project primarily monitors fish passage. Who is tracking other types of projects such as how well riparian plants are doing? It would have been helpful if the proponents had provided a summary of what monitoring is done and what results are available. When do they decide to do fish monitoring? No methods are provided for how this monitoring occurs. It was not clear where these data are.

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. Because of the importance of the proposal as a guiding document for the project, we also encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to reflect these changes, but the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

1. SMART objectives. While the proponents provide a solid list of SMART objectives and detailed actions associated with each SMART objective, the time frame for achieving each of the objectives is given as 2027, which corresponds to the five years of funding sought. It was not clear which actions will be done in what year(s) during the five-years of the project. Please provide the annual goal for each objective to correspond to annual reporting so that progress towards meeting objectives can be readily tracked. Based on the overall quality of the proposal and the project’s track record, the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

2. Summary of monitoring findings. The ISRP requests the proponents to fully describe the fish monitoring findings that are conducted as part of this habitat restoration effort and to describe if and how the information has been used to adjust the projects activities and future project selection. Some graphical and statistical analyses would be helpful.

3. Project selection process. The ISRP requests a fuller description of the project selection process. In the reviewed proposal, it is stated that the project uses “YTAHP’s tried-andtrue vetting process” and that “Projects are prioritized based on available Priority Index numbers, alignment with the Priority Actions in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan, and the Primary Resource Concerns for both the North Yakima and Kittitas Conservation Districts.” While this appears to be a plausible multi-faceted process, the actual mechanics of the process are obscure. Are fish production potential and habitat capacity incorporated in the prioritization process? 

4. 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 Yakima Basin Habitat Project (199705100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Yakima River basin. 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 goals of the YTAHP are stated more fully in the summary section than in the Problem Statement. It would have been better to state a single Goal that includes all four of the elements identified as separate goals. What are listed as “YTAHP Goals” in the table provided would be better termed as a set of “Desired Outcomes” rather than goals. A suggestion for an improved Goal statement would be: Enhance the numbers of steelhead, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon returning to the Yakima River subbasin to healthier levels by eliminating salmonid mortality caused by impingement and entrainment into surface water diversions, restoring habitat connectivity, improving instream and riparian habitats, and decreasing fish passage impediments.

The proponents provide an excellent description of the significance of the project and its relationship to regional plans.

The proposal provides a useful list of nearly complete SMART objectives and detailed actions associated with each SMART objective, for 4 of the 5 areas; however, the number of project sites or stream miles are not provided for instream habitat restoration. The time frame for achieving each of the objectives is given as 2027, which corresponds to the five years of funding sought. In addition, it would be good to see an annual goal for each objective to correspond to annual reporting so that progress towards meeting objectives can be readily tracked. It is not clear which actions will be done in what year(s) during the five-years of the project.

The proposal provides a succinct chart showing specific quantifiable actions to meet the objectives. Over the next 5 years, YTAHP proposes to implement 28 projects that align with the program’s objectives and contribute to opening three of the four remaining blocked MSAs in the Upper Yakima (Wenas, Naneum, Caribou MSAs) and to meeting the spatial structure criteria in NOAA’s Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan. 

As the proponent acknowledges, an objective to track the biological response to the actions is not provided. While the proponent identifies that tracking the biological response is “left to other programs,” there is a need of demonstrating a definitive feedback loop to understand the adequacy and success of the past and proposed actions. It is not clear if the information being provided by other projects on biological response is adequate. For example, the described simple detection of presence/absence of adult anadromous fish does not allow understanding of the full impact of the project actions. It is imperative to show if and how the proponents receive this feedback on a regular basis and to indicate how this information is processed and used to potentially change the actions planned. If the Goal of this project is to enhance numbers of focal anadromous fish, then the biological response needs to be an integral part of this project or provided by the lead monitoring and evaluation project (i.e., Project 199506325).

Q2: Methods

The proposed project builds upon previous efforts and methodologies. Methods to complete each of the five objectives were briefly but adequately described. The habitat objectives will be accomplished following direction provided by a robust team, including a NOAA Fisheries hydraulic engineer, Bonneville Power Administration engineers and environmental compliance staff, WDFW Fish Screening & Passage Biologists and the local YTAHP technical working group consisting of project proponents, engineers, the permit coordinator, biologists, and regulators. Stream assessments will be conducted utilizing Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife’s protocol provided via their Fish Passage & Screening Division; inventoried stream information will be uploaded to the WDFW Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Inventory (FPDSI) database. The proposal describes a prioritization process to select projects. A description of “Priority Index Numbers” and how they are derived would be helpful, because that seems key to prioritization. It is not clear if fish production potential and habitat capacity are incorporated in the prioritization process. It is unnecessary and confusing to reword the objectives in the Methods section. The Objectives should read the same as the SMART Objectives given in the Goals and Objectives section. A good amount of detail is provided about the actions to be taken to get to desired outcomes.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The YTAHP continually monitors its progress in three ways. First, for program function, the Core Team members and partners meet monthly to discuss project development, funding opportunities, and issues impacting fish recovery within the Yakima Basin. Second, each individual project is monitored for proper installation and performance. If problems with the structure and/or function are discovered during these assessments, adaptive maintenance will be applied as quickly as possible to correct the problem. Third, YTAHP has tracked biological responses before and after project implementation by monitoring fish abundance trends above and below certain barrier correction projects. The proponents describe the location of numerous PIT tag arrays used to monitor fish populations. However, the monitoring of basinwide fish response is left to other programs with RM&E funding and capacity. The proponents describe a basic but strong post-project evaluation process from a physical and structural integrity approach. However, the project adjustment process is not clear. Are there examples how projects have been modified in response to monitoring results? The strength of the fish response monitoring is unclear. It is not clear if or how the project uses fish response information to adapt and change their actions. It would be useful to see tables and/or graphs of the fish numbers and fish distribution changes over time, at least since the inception of this project in 2007.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

While the actions to be implemented likely will benefit fish and wildlife, the proposal provides limited direct documentation of these biological benefits. The proponent should have presented a summary of findings of their fish monitoring effort (presence/absence) within the localized restoration project area. Successful reestablishment of anadromy has been observed in some streams after barrier removal, but numbers of fish utilizing the new habitats appear to be unknown. Since 2002, the YTAHP has screened 448 cubic feet per second (cfs) of surface water diverted for irrigation, restored anadromous fish access to 238 miles of tributary habitat, and placed more than 67.5 cfs into the Trust Water Program through water conservation practices and alternative irrigation sources. This is in addition to more than 16.6 miles of riparian planting on 219 acres where YTAHP projects have been implemented. YTAHP has also partnered with other restoration entities to reconnect floodplain habitat, open side channels, remove levees, and install large wood and other habitat forming materials instream to further enhance habitat. These actions appear to be benefiting steelhead, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon. It is hard to tell the overall effect of multiple projects in a tributary without having a stronger level of monitoring data at the tributary scale.

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.