Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2009-003-00 - Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2009-003-00 - Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2009-003-00
Title:
Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration
Summary:
The Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Project works to restore natural function to the Wenatchee, Entiat and Methow Watersheds. Our restoration efforts take a comprehensive approach to the restoration of habitat for fisheries resources including salmonids and bull trout.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Yakama Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2008
Ending FY:
2032
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Entiat 20.00%
Methow 40.00%
Wenatchee 40.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Sockeye - All Populations
Sockeye - Lake Wenatchee ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 85.0%   Resident: 10.0%   Wildlife: 5.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $7,371,250 $8,371,250 $7,758,576 $7,539,161 $6,971,993

Post 2018 – Yakama $5,843,765 $5,416,072 $5,262,904 $4,866,978
Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $2,527,485 $2,342,504 $2,276,257 $2,105,015
FY2019 (Current) $5,668,452 $2,566,802 $2,813,055 $3,483,638

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $5,668,452 $2,566,802 $2,813,055 $3,483,638
FY2020 (Next) $5,668,452 $5,668,452 $0 $513,360 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $5,668,452 $0 $513,360 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Nov-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $5,843,765 From: Post 2018 – Yakama FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,527,485 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (Idaho, CRITFC, CCT, CTUIR, YN) 3/24/2017 03/24/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,000,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (YN) 3/26/18 03/26/2018
FY2019 Expense $5,668,452 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $5,668,452 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
There are no cost share summaries to display from previous years.

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-004446 Bonneville Power Administration Land - Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Active $260,000 4/1/2009 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004560 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Preacquisition Support-Conservation Easements and purchases Active $1,016,312 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005423 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Land Support Active $367,431 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006207 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Land Acquisition Support for Upper Columbia Habitat Active $2,922,856 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006857 Bonneville Power Administration Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Active $340,832 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007583 Bonneville Power Administration Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Active $278 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008232 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Work/Land - Upper Columbia Habitat Active $0 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008676 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 Land Acquisitions Active $4,877 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
56662 REL 111 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 2009-003-00 EXP UC HABITAT RESTORATION: PERSONNEL & CONTRACTORS Issued $6,846,760 6/1/2016 - 5/31/2018
73693 SOW Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 2009-003-00 EXP MSRF 2016 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Issued $30,169 9/15/2016 - 9/14/2017
BPA-009447 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 Land Acquisitions & TBL work Active $8,095 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
56662 REL 142 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTORATION Issued $4,976,472 10/1/2017 - 12/31/2018
BPA-010235 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 Land Acquisitions Active $225,545 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
56662 REL 161 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT STAFF & SUBS Issued $3,734,964 6/1/2018 - 5/31/2019
56662 REL 169 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTORATION Issued $2,566,802 10/1/2018 - 12/31/2019
BPA-010612 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Active $0 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):31
Completed:15
On time:15
Status Reports
Completed:167
On time:86
Avg Days Late:14

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-004446 Land - Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Bonneville Power Administration 04/2009 04/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41866 47761 200900300 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTORATION Yakama Confederated Tribes 04/2009 04/2009 Closed 23 52 0 0 5 57 91.23% 18
42460 200900300 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTOR-METHOW CONSERV Methow Conservancy 05/2009 05/2009 Closed 13 11 0 0 0 11 100.00% 2
43451 58035, 66212, 70500, 73693, 76869 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTOR-MSRF Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 07/2009 07/2009 Closed 37 51 0 0 14 65 78.46% 10
BPA-004560 TBL Preacquisition Support-Conservation Easements and purchases Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005423 TBL Land Support Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52932 60682 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTORA-CDLT Chelan-Douglas Land Trust 05/2011 05/2011 Closed 14 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
BPA-006207 TBL Land Acquisition Support for Upper Columbia Habitat Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56662 REL 4 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT REST - RESCHEDULE WORK Yakama Confederated Tribes 06/2012 06/2012 Closed 8 21 0 0 2 23 91.30% 1
56662 REL 3 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTORATION - YN Yakama Confederated Tribes 06/2012 06/2012 Closed 8 22 0 0 5 27 81.48% 4
56662 REL 2 56662 REL 58, 56662 REL 111, 56662 REL 161 2009-003-00 EXP UCR PERSONNEL AND SUBCONTRACT SERVICES Yakama Confederated Tribes 06/2012 06/2012 Issued 26 65 30 0 6 101 94.06% 6
57909 2009-003-00 EXP UCR HABITAT IMPLEMENTATION - TU PROJECTS Montana Trout Unlimited 08/2012 08/2012 Closed 6 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
BPA-006857 Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007583 Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56662 REL 27 56662 REL 65, 56662 REL 88, 56662 REL 119 2009-003-00 EXP UCR HABITAT - 2014 WORK 12SEP Yakama Confederated Tribes 10/2013 10/2013 Closed 20 87 0 0 30 117 74.36% 42
56662 REL 35 2009-003-00 EXP UCR - WDFW PROJECT TECHNICAL REVIEW SENT 9OCT13 Yakama Confederated Tribes 10/2013 10/2013 Closed 8 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
BPA-008232 TBL Work/Land - Upper Columbia Habitat Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008676 FY16 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009447 FY17 Land Acquisitions & TBL work Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010235 FY18 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56662 REL 142 56662 REL 169 2009-003-00 EXP UPPER COLUMBIA HABITAT RESTORATION Yakama Confederated Tribes 10/2017 10/2017 Issued 3 0 35 0 0 35 100.00% 9
BPA-010612 FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 166 328 65 0 62 455 86.37% 92


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2009-003-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2009-003-00 - Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2009-003-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through FY 2014: 1) Sponsor to submit monitoring progress report for ISRP review by March 1, 2014 (also see recommendation for project # 2010-001-00). Recommendation to implement for FY 2015 and beyond, depending on favorable review of the monitoring progress report. 2) See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Effectiveness monitoring—Implement with conditions through FY 2014: 1) Sponsor to submit monitoring progress report for ISRP review by March 1, 2014 (also see recommendation for project # 2010-001-00). Recommendation to implement for FY 2015 and beyond, depending on favorable review of the monitoring progress report. 2) See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2009-003-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2009-003-00 - Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2009-003-00
Completed Date: 9/26/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The responses to the ISRP for questions 2, 3, and 4 raised in the preliminary review were not adequate. While it is true that this project is focused on implementing habitat restoration strategies, the purpose of these actions is to improve aquatic habitat to improve survival of specific life-cycle stages of anadromous spring Chinook and steelhead.

The work this project executes is coordinated through Watershed Action Teams and Regional Technical Teams and vetted through the Action Agency Expert Panel. Projects selected and implemented are intended to fulfill obligations under the FCRPS BiOp for offsite mitigation to improve salmon abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity. Consequently, it is essential that the project incorporates and demonstrates a knowledge of the current status of the focal species, the current status of the physical habitat, the desired restored state of the focal species, and the desired restored state of the physical habitat; an understanding of the hypothesized linkage between the state of the habitat and the state of the focal species; knowledge of how the fish species are being monitored; knowledge of how the habitat is being monitored; and knowledge of the status of whether restoration efforts are achieving their intended benefit to salmon and steelhead.

This project takes place in a large area in which many other organizations are engaged in aquatic and riparian habitat restoration, as well as implementing a variety of water transaction agreements. It is clear to the ISRP that the level of biological effectiveness monitoring among projects is very uneven. Simply stating that effectiveness monitoring is the responsibility of a partner organization is no guarantee that assessment of restoration effectiveness will be sufficient to judge the overall success of a large project such as this one. Details are needed. For this reason, we believe that a comprehensive effort should be undertaken among Upper Columbia partners to develop an explicit monitoring program in which the responsibilities of each partner are clearly spelled out. The science conference in November is a step in the right direction, but the ISRP feels that a specific plan should be the outcome of the conference, and that the plan should be available for ISRP review by the end of the year.

Qualification #1 - Effectiveness monitoring
The primary need for improvement in this project is the integration between the selection and implementation of habitat restoration actions and the benefits they are intended to provide for focal fish species. This need for improvement was apparent in the site visit, presentations, and response. Moreover, this was identified as a major issue in the ISRP 2009 project review and, to date, has not been addressed by the sponsors, BPA, or the Council. Because this is a wide-ranging project that includes many sites that potentially benefit a number of species of concern, monitoring the biological effectiveness of restoration actions is critically important. In the response to the ISRP, the sponsor states that progress will be made toward implementing an expanded effectiveness monitoring program at an Upper Columbia Science Conference in November 2013. The qualification is that the project sponsors and their partners should develop an agreed-upon set of metrics for evaluating biological effectiveness, a schedule for implementing effectiveness monitoring, a plan for evaluating and archiving data, and a procedure for incorporating monitoring information into future restoration plans. This document should be submitted by the end of 2013 and reviewed by the ISRP.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

A response is requested for a revised proposal. While this is a proposal to continue useful work, the following information is needed in order for the ISRP to fully judge its scientific adequacy:

1) In the significance to regional programs section, provide the RPA 35.1 table 5 gaps for each subbasin and identify the anticipated gains in habitat values from this project.

2) In the problem statement, provide a summary of the focal species’ current status and desired gains in VSP from habitat restoration in each subbasin. Further, provide context and justification for individual restoration priorities and linkage to the BiOp RPA 35 and Upper Columbia recovery plan.

3) Clarify how this project is coordinated with the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat project, with which it apparently shares many objectives and deliverables.

4) Explain how this project is linked to regional monitoring programs, and in particular, which monitoring programs will be involved in monitoring the effectiveness of each of the nine deliverables.

Summary Comments

The goal of this project is to improve habitat conditions for salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins to a degree capable of supporting sustainable populations. This proposed project is specifically intended to restore ecological functions to stream habitat in the three identified subbasins in order to contribute to the recovery of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. In addition, the project is intended to be holistic in nature and thus to improve habitat for other fish and aquatic as well as terrestrial species present in these areas. The overarching goal is of significance to a number of regional restoration programs.

The project was evaluated by the ISAB in 2009 and concerns were raised about post-treatment monitoring of habitat restoration actions. The ISRP believed that, while the value of habitat projects identified through the process described in the proposal appeared obvious and compelling, the habitat work needed to be accompanied by a reasonably explicit monitoring plan. Otherwise important learning opportunities would be lost and the adaptive management value of the actions would be compromised. The present version of the proposal does little to resolve these concerns.

The sponsors appear to have the technical expertise to carrying out the restoration actions. They have been implementing the actions for several years and, we believe, have learned the best ways to accomplish the actions.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The linkage of the project to regional programs was for the most part described. However the specific details of how this project’s work is intended to contribute to the BiOp RPA 35 and recovery plan priorities is not adequately presented. BiOP RPA 35.1 is quite specific regarding improvement in complexity or categories of habitat features within each subbasin. The proposal should provide the gaps from RPA 35.1 Table 5 for each subbasin included in this proposal, and identify how much of the required improvement from 2014 through 2018 will be undertaken by this project.

One obvious question, however, was how this project was related to the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat project (2010-001-00), with which it appears to have a significant overlap of objectives and restoration locations. The proposal did not mention how the two projects, with similarly large budgets, would be coordinated. That is would they share resources and implementation responsibilities in subbasins where they have a common interest?

Problem Statement: The information in the problem statement is overly general and too brief. The proposal should summarize the current status of ESA listed salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, the desired status in the BiOp and recovery plan timeframes (2018 and 2033 – 10 and 25 years after the 2008 BiOp), and the hypothesized gains to be achieved with habitat restoration. The proposal provides citations where the ISRP and others can find much of this information, but a cogent summary is needed in the proposal itself to establish context for the individual actions. The opening paragraph in the Significance to Regional Programs section states: “The goal is to re-establish the ability of the ecosystem to maintain its function and organization without continued human intervention”. In the problem statement the ISRP would appreciate more information on the balance of actions to achieve long-term watershed process improvement at the landscape scale and actions intended to provide near-term site and reach scale improvement in symptoms caused by larger scale disturbance. The sections of the introduction that emphasize that habitat restoration will take place within assessment units and address limiting factors identified as priorities in the Recovery Plan and Subbasin Plans is helpful. It is however difficult to grasp what additional assessment and planning is required, a timeframe for completing work, and a timeframe for observing a response in physical habitat attributes and ultimately in fish population vital parameters.

Objectives: There is only one objective: Comprehensive Habitat Restoration. The objective is overly vague and lacks quantification but can be better examined via the deliverables for the project. While it is reassuring to see the subbasin plans being used, the specific habitat objectives need to be better identified. Success and how it will be assessed are not described, although such a description is requested in the proposal form.

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

Accomplishments and Results: The proposal provides details about the numbers of assessments completed, projects planned, started, and completed during the recent work cycle. The sponsors have completed a number of physical restoration actions and the reporting rate is satisfactory. Unfortunately, the specific objectives for past actions were not quantitative so it is not possible to evaluate if they are successful in meeting their programmatic goals. Further, nearly all the monitoring conducted was for Individual Project Engineering Performance. It appears that little ecological monitoring was conducted.

The ISRP needs to see the ecological performance relative to the timeframe expected under the BiOp and Recovery Plan, identification of shortfalls under those plans, and discussion of whether the overall ecological goals can be achieved for the 2018 period of the MOA.

According to the proposal this project is linked to a number of regional monitoring programs such as ISEMP, PNAMP, PIBO, and others. As well, the Entiat is the site of an ISEMP Intensively Monitored Watershed. We would like more information on coordination between this project, which is apparently limited to restoration implementation, and the other regional monitoring programs. What information is passed from this project to the other monitoring efforts, what information is received from them, and how are monitoring data used to inform new restoration actions? Also, will biological monitoring take place at every restoration location implemented by this project, or a subset of sites?

Adaptive Management: There is no adaptive management plan or strategy specifically for this project. Reference is made to an adaptive management loop in the recovery plan, but how it will function, and what metrics and methods apply to this project are absent. There is no explanation of who is responsible for evaluating the actions in this project and the governance for implementing a different suite of actions if that should be required. A discussion of the variables being evaluated by the adaptive management conceptual models, the threshold values that would trigger actions, the alternative actions under consideration, and dates when evaluations will take place need to be provided. All actions should have testable goals (hypotheses), appropriate monitoring, analyses, and a process for adjusting future actions, if necessary. Further, it is not clear that this section was updated from the previous proposal. For example, the sponsors are still planning to hold a workshop in November 2009.

The executive summary lists various entities involved in monitoring and evaluation of the project. However, at least one of the entities (CSMEP) is no longer functioning. And others like PNAMP do not actually collect field data and conduct assessments. So somewhere in the proposal there is a need to be specific about which entity is collecting field data, which is estimating derived parameters, and which is making conclusions about efficacy using the estimated parameters.

There is no response provided for past ISRP reviews. This omission needs to be addressed, especially considering the concerns in the 2009 review.

Evaluation of Results

In the Explanation of Recent Financial Performance section of the proposal, the sponsor summarizes each year activities:

FY2009 – Started four Reach Assessments. Constructed 1 project, designed 5 projects, and funded one other.

FY2010 - Completed four Reach Assessments, completed one design and began designs for eight additional projects, completed construction on four projects and funded one other. Began design on two large projects to be implemented in FY2011. The UCHRP was fully staffed by this time.

FY2011 - Completed designs for six large projects (did not implement because of high water), began design of three projects, completed one small project, began two Reach Assessments and completed the Middle Methow River Safety Assessment.

FY2012 - Completed nine restoration projects, completed design of three projects, completed Upper Wenatchee River Safety Assessment, completed one and began one reach assessment.

The “Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact” section of the proposal list the name and river mile section of priority reaches and provides a more detailed presentation of the information above in tables organized by subbasin. The information provided by the sponsor is interesting but not sufficient for the ISRP to evaluate the extent to which the process of project development (expert panel/watershed team), implementation, and evaluation is working to achieve the goals of the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery Plan, and Tribal and Subbasin fishery objectives.

The ISRP needs to know the amount of habitat work needed in each subbasin, how much assessment is needed, how much has been planned, how much has been implemented, and the state of assessment. The ISRP needs to be able to determine that each element of RPA 35 was fulfilled.

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

Project Relationships: The relationships section of the proposal lists all the former projects that have been incorporated into Project 2009-003-00. It appears that this project is a recent consolidation of approximately 44 individual projects. Given the geographic scope and range of habitat actions implemented the proposal should outline the administrative structure to manage these in an effective manner. Specifically, how are the individual projects reviewed for scientific rigor and prioritized? Is there a review team, with an appropriate level and scope of expertise, to do this?

The ISRP needs more information on other entities that are also conducting work in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins and how the Yakama Nation's projects are integrated with those efforts.

The executive summary provides a list of projects that contribute to monitoring, but the details of the relationships are not provided in any other section of the proposal. There are notes in the results table that ISEMP is monitoring some projects. What are the project’s relationships with other entities? What are the details of the relationships for specific restoration actions and goals? Are the data, if available, delivered in a timely manner so as to allow adjustments to on-the-ground habitat actions?

Emerging Limiting Factors: Climate change is mentioned as an emerging limiting factor, but other important factors are not mentioned, for example toxic agricultural chemicals, future water withdrawals for agriculture, hatchery impacts, non-native invasions, and predation. How are these factors incorporated into restoration strategies and priorities? They are all important and each has the potential to undermine costly restoration efforts. Further, while climate change is acknowledged in this proposal, it is not being adequately addressed for a program of this scope. There are approaches in use to gain insights into future flows, and these insights can help shape restoration strategies and actions. These include scenario analyses 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 important to assess in simulated scenario the sensitivity of late summer (July, August, and September) flows to the following variable both singly and in combination: climate change, changes in the quantity of water used for irrigation, and possible changes to existing 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. Models to perform analyses like these were not mentioned in the proposal. With the scope of restoration being planned and prioritized, assessment beyond geomorphic analysis is warranted. Further, should mussels and specific riparian birds be included as focal species?

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

This section is reasonably complete. According to the proposal, specific restoration locations have already been identified while others will await environmental assessments before priority sites are determined. Three restoration categories – instream flow improvements, irrigation screen installation and replacement, and cattle exclusion fencing – are mentioned in the executive summary but not specifically identified in the objectives or deliverables. We assume this means that those types of projects will be minor additions to the suite of actions to be funded under this proposal.

While the objectives and deliverables were well described, there was no mention of the primary target fish species that would be benefited by particular restoration actions. It is assumed that Chinook and steelhead are the focal species for most actions, but some of the work will improve habitat for coho salmon, bull trout, and Pacific lamprey. It would be helpful to include a list of target species for each deliverable.

Additionally, deliverables need to be quantitative and have associated timelines for successful completion. Some deliverables do this, but many do not. Further, without any direct monitoring for effectiveness, it is not possible to tell if the work elements and metrics are the best for specific situations or if the work elements and metrics need to be modified in any way.

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.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

According to the proposal this project does not engage in monitoring, and therefore there were no links to MonitoringMethods.org. Nonetheless, evaluation is required, even if field data are collected and analyzed by another project or entity. Somewhere in the proposal, a reasonably detailed data evaluation process needs to be described.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 4:11:46 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/10/2013)
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2009-003-00-ISRP-20100323
Project: 2009-003-00 - Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 10/16/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
Because the proposal primarily focused on describing the background and justification of the process of prioritizing habitat restoration in the Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow subbasins, it is premature for the ISRP to comment on this project’s scientific soundness until more information is provided. The narrative suggests that the planned activities are consistent with other inventory and planning efforts in the province, and we assume that funding from the Accord MOA will help provide needed human and other resources in subbasins where such resources are spread thin. However, this proposal in its present form does not contain sufficient technical detail for a scientific review.

We request a revised proposal that provides sufficient detail for a technical review including:

1. Procedures by which watershed assessments and prioritization of projects will be conducted.

2. Summary data on stock and current habitat status (productivity and capacity estimates of past and current conditions) to provide context for the slate of priority activities identified in the proposal.

3. The anticipated effects of habitat improvements on fish and wildlife populations; and the details of a monitoring program that facilitates adaptive learning.

The habitat restoration efforts in the Columbia Cascade Province are well underway, and the YNFRM has played a significant role in improving salmon and steelhead habitat in this area. Implementation of the types of projects identified in the listed priority actions (pages 12-15) should benefit fish and wildlife, if they are implemented in the proper locations. However, at this time it is impossible to evaluate the scientific basis for habitat improvement, or estimate the potential benefit to fish and wildlife populations, until the planning work is complete, sites have been prioritized, and implementation and monitoring plans have been finalized. The ISRP recognizes that this step cannot be accomplished until the inventory and prioritization process is complete. This proposal is consistent with the ongoing planning and implementation process in this province, and it proposes to supplement funding for habitat inventory and restoration projects, which will enable hiring more people to do the actual work. In a region where there is much to do and limited resources to implement the subbasin and recovery plans, additional funding is warranted. However, insufficient detail was provided in the proposal to evaluate the technical adequacy of the protocols that will be employed to complete the inventory and planning activities.

It would be helpful to the ISRP, as this project goes forward, to view outcomes from the planning and implementation of habitat actions in a subset of reaches that include different restoration actions. This does not have to be included in the formal response to our review. It might be possible to highlight the Accord MOA supported work in the context of a rolling provincial review. However, providing the ISRP with information on how the inventory, priority setting, and implementation efforts are progressing would help us understand the project and hopefully provide constructive feedback.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2008-432-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-432-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-431-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-431-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-433-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-433-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-435-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-435-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-434-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-434-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-430-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-430-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-426-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-426-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-425-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-425-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-427-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-427-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-429-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-429-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-428-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-428-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-443-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-443-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-442-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-442-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-444-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-444-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-446-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-446-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-445-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-445-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-441-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-441-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-437-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-437-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-436-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-436-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-438-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-438-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-440-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-440-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-439-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-439-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-409-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-409-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-408-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-408-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-410-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-410-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-413-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-413-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-411-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-411-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-407-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-407-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-402-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-402-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-401-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-401-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-403-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-403-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-406-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-406-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-404-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-404-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-421-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-421-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-420-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-420-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-422-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-422-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-424-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-424-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-423-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-423-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-419-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-419-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-415-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-415-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-414-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-414-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-416-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-416-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-418-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-418-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.

This project Merged From 2008-417-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine work/budgets of 2008-417-00 (and 43 other YN Fish Accord habitat projects) into 2009-003-00.


Name Role Organization
Brandon Rogers Supervisor Yakama Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Edward Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Roy Beaty (Inactive) Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Madeleine Eckmann Technical Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Hans Smith Project Lead Yakama Confederated Tribes
Jackie Olney Administrative Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Debbie Azure Administrative Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Timothy Ludington Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration