See Qualification.

The ISRP's qualifications from its previous review of this project in 2011 remain (see ISRP 2011- 23). Informed by the ISRP's 2011 review, the Council recommended in January 2012: "Bonneville will include as part of contracting specific deliverables for 1) the details of the framework the CTUIR references as a tool for prioritizing properties for potential acquisition, 2) a comprehensive plan or statement of reference condition that can be used as the basis to evaluate or compare each property presented as a priority for acquisition, and 3) additional detail regarding CTUIR monitoring and how acquired parcels will be accounted for within the context of the regional framework for habitat status and trend monitoring. Based on the CTUIR's development of the aforementioned detail as part of contracting, the Council recommends this project to Bonneville for implementation. This recommendation is conditioned on the sponsor addressing in contracting the issues raised by the ISRP. The Council requested that follow-up be provided by Bonneville that reflects these contractual elements were incorporated. In addition, the revised prioritization framework and updated narrative will be reviewed as part of the geographic review." BPA has not issued a contract for this project, and the issues and conditions in the Council's January 2012 recommendation have not been addressed. Therefore, the ISRP recommendation for the Geographic Review remains unchanged from the 2011 review recommendation of Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) (ISRP document 2011-23). The Council's January 2012 recommendation, as informed by the ISRP's review, still applies. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a response addressing the qualifications.

While this version of the proposal was marginally better than the last one, the sponsors need to adequately address some basic ISRP concerns. Acquisitions and easements on critical streams and land parcels should be a high priority and could provide significant opportunities for enhancing habitat and improving fish growth and survival. However, those actions need to be completed with a clear vision of how they contribute to larger goals, how the acquisition/easements will be affected by future environmental conditions, and how they will be monitored to show if the strategy is working.

The ISRP requests a response as follows:

1) Provide further responses to ISRP 2012 comments 2, 3, and 8.

ISRP Comment 2: Provide more detail on how the sponsors will determine quantitative anticipated benefits of land acquisition and leasing to fish and wildlife in terms of protection or restoration of productivity, abundance, diversity, and spatial structure.

ISRP Comment 3: Provide a rationale for the five criteria in the Acquisition Project Area Prioritization Worksheet, and for the implicitly equal (additive) weighting of each criterion. In particular, justify how criterion 5 (administrative value) should be combined with the other four criteria that measure biological value.

ISRP Comment 8: Outline how effectiveness monitoring of habitat and fish populations will be conducted. A detailed monitoring plan is not necessary at this point.

2) Provide an adaptive management process or strategy to evaluate whether the acquisitions/easements are fulfilling their intended purposes.

3) Provide a strategy or plan to address questions about “emerging” factors as noted above.

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

This proposal is for acquisition of land or easements in the Grande Ronde, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and John Day subbasins for protection and restoration of riparian areas to benefit ESA-listed spring Chinook and summer steelhead. The project focuses on securing permanent protection of priority anadromous fish core habitats in these subbasins through conservation easements and capital acquisition of fee title.

This project is identified as the CTUIR's primary project for providing permanent conservation of habitats under the Columbia River Accords agreement, and as contributing directly to the vision of Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposed work is consistent with the subbasin plans for the four subbasins, and other federal, state, and tribal recovery plans. The project has clear significance to regional programs. The sponsors and their partner organizations appear to have the technical background to successfully complete the activities

The emphasis is on acquiring core, high quality habitats that have been minimally disturbed or have a high potential for restoration. The approach seems to entail using the priority geographic areas identified in the subbasin plans as well as the Atlas as the basis for identifying and selecting acquisitions. When land acquisition opportunities become available in the priority geographic areas, the sponsors will prioritize these potential acquisitions for their conservation value using a set of criteria that numerically rank the acquisitions. Evaluations will be done by a multidisciplinary team.

The ISRP previously reviewed this project in 2012 and found that several issues needed to be addressed. The project was approved with a directive to review it again in this round of proposals when outcomes of the three tiered project prioritization were available. Three of these issues were not addressed adequately in the proposal.

Below, the ISRP comment from their 2012 review is noted first. CTUIR's response (dated10/12/11) to the each comment is given next. Finally, the ISRP comments on the response and whether it is adequately addressed in the present proposal are provided.

ISRP 2012 Comment 2: “…. more explanation is needed on the quantitative anticipated benefits to fish and wildlife in terms of protection or restoration of productivity, abundance, diversity, and spatial structure (presumably from EDT/QHA estimates).”

• Sponsor’s Response (partial): …. “Quantitative changes in productivity, abundance, etc will be evaluated at a watershed and subbasin scale as part of ongoing natural production R,M and E and not at the project or reach scale.”
• ISRP Comment: The present proposal does not offer a clear description of how this will be accomplished. The sponsors should develop a criterion that directly addresses the potential of a property for increasing abundance and productivity of fish.

ISRP 2012 Comment 3: “Some indication is needed of (a) the prioritization of the four subbasins – Grande Ronde, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and John Day – that are components of the acquisitions and (b) the anticipated extent of the acreage to be acquired.”

• Sponsor’s Response (partial): “The “Hillman Method” used by the Action Agencies to estimate population productivity improvement was not conducted in such a way as to permit comparison between subbasins.”
• ISRP Comment: The accumulated experience of the sponsors and other quantitative methods should allow prioritization of subbasins. This concern could be addressed more adequately in the present proposal.

The sponsors propose a process for identifying, prioritizing, and acquiring through purchase or lease floodplain sites in each of the four subbasins. The proposal includes a worked example of the prioritization process for an anticipated land acquisition. While this example was informative, the description of the prioritization process is still too vague to allow rigorous evaluation. The example in the Acquisition Project Area Prioritization Worksheet on pages 5-7 does not explain the three-tiered prioritization based on EDT/QHA analysis nor does it explain the rationale for using the 5 criteria for ranking sites. Choosing weights for multiple attributes in additive ranking schemes is a tricky business and warrants some testing in worked examples to demonstrate that ranks remain robust over a range of scenarios. The first two of the five criteria judge potential biological benefits of the site considered in isolation of other sites, resulting in subtotaled scores ranging from 2 to 6. The next two criteria adjust the total score upwards or downwards depending on the duration of benefits or potential synergies through connectivity with other actions, resulting in a modified subtotal ranging from 0 to 10. This sequence seems reasonable in principle.

The last criterion is poorly explained, but appears to be qualitatively different in that it scores administrative advantages or problems resulting from choosing the site in question, that is an attribute not directly related to biological benefits. Moreover, applying the fifth criterion produces a peculiar total that ranges from -3 to 13. Because the last criterion is qualitatively different, its appropriate weight will be difficult to judge without some experience; it probably makes more sense to graph the subtotal for criteria 1-4 (biological value) against the fifth criterion (administrative value) and to develop isopleths of perceived equivalent value by consensus. For example, in the current scoring procedure, two sites with total score of 10 would be considered equivalent, that is on the same isopleth in the plot suggested, even though the first has a biological value of 13 and an administrative value of -3, whereas the second has a biological value of only 7 and an administrative value of +3. Plotting values for trial examples and reflecting on the reasonableness of the outcomes would provide a way to gain confidence in the weighting system before applying it systematically. Perhaps this has already been done. If so, the process should be described in more detail.

ISRP 2012 Comment 8: Develop a monitoring and evaluation framework.

• Sponsors Response (partial): “…. CTUIR will continue to coordinate and integrate efforts of model watershed (s), ODFW, WDF, CRITFC, U.S. Forest Service, BOR to meet VSP, hatchery, and habitat effectiveness monitoring.”
• ISRP Comment: The present proposal did not provide enough detail to judge if the monitoring is appropriate or adequate to show that the land acquisitions have improved or maintained habitat and fish survivorship, abundance, and diversity.

The proposal lists one objective that is very broad and merely restates the purpose of the project. An outreach and education objective should be included to inform neighboring landowners and other members of the public about what activities in the acquisition are ongoing or planned, and the progress that is being made. Outreach and education could be highly beneficial in encouraging landowners to participate in some way in the conservation process.

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

This is a new project, and it does not provide accomplishments or results. No adaptive management process or strategy is articulated. A strategy for adaptive management clearly is needed.

Evaluation of Results

The purpose of this project is to acquire or lease land to protect or improve habitat to benefit ESA listed summer steelhead and spring Chinook. Acquisitions and easements on critical streams and land parcels should be a high priority and could provide significant opportunities for enhancing habitat and improving fish growth and survival.

The proposal was reviewed by the ISRP in 2012. The review identified several issues of concern and requested a response. The sponsors provided a response dated 10/12/11. In the current review the ISRP found that several of their original concerns were adequately addressed in the sponsor’s response and in the current proposal. The ISRP found that other issues (ISRP comments 2, 3, and 8) were insufficiently addressed in the proposal and again requested a response.

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

The sponsor has a long history of relationships with other groups and agencies. The sponsors cite relationships with several ongoing projects in the Grande Ronde, Umatilla, John Day, and Walla Walla subbasins but provide little information on how they are cooperating or coordinating with these projects. The counties do not appear to be directly involved in significant ways.

The proposal includes thoughtful consideration of the likely impacts of climate change, and how site acquisition decisions might reduce these impacts. It is not clear, however, that this reasoning was included in the five criteria used to rank sites.

Climate change is noted as an emerging limiting factor. However, it could easily be argued that it is no longer an “emerging” factor. Climate change started in the region about 1950 and this “phase” of loss of late summer snowpack is thought to be completed around 2030. There are new modeling environments available that the sponsors may wish to examine that give insights into future stream conditions. These modeling environments may help guide restoration actions.

Other “emerging limiting factors,” or just limiting factors, that received little attention in the proposal include non-native species, hatchery effects on native salmonids, predation, toxic chemicals, and trends in agricultural water withdrawals and land use. How will the proposed acquisitions be affected by these factors? Or, how can the acquisitions help mitigate some of their ecological effects?

Mussels should be listed as species of concern and should be considered in acquisitions. Mussels appear to be in serious decline in the region, and it would not be surprising to see some species proposed for listing in the next decade. It is important to start protecting them now so as to be prepared for future restrictions.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Deliverables describe the steps in the process of identification, prioritization, and acquisition or leasing of land. To ensure confidentiality, acquisitions and leases that are planned or are in process were not identified. The sponsors do not explicitly describe expected outcomes or products of the acquisitions. A clear set of specific objectives that describe what the sponsors hope to accomplish with each acquisition or lease and the means for accomplishing them would help define outcomes.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No comments.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 11:29:28 AM.

The ISRP recognizes that the project is potentially beneficial to both anadromous and resident species. However, the ISRP finds that not enough detail is provided in the proposal to fully assess potential benefits to fish and wildlife. Thus, the ISRP asks for a response.