The proposal is well written, and the goals and objectives are well stated. The primary purpose of the project is to engage in habitat improvement actions that address prioritized limiting factors in specific watersheds. Initially this approach was implemented in the Okanogan subbasin and subsequently enlarged to the Methow subbasin. The current proposal has expanded the coverage of the project to also include the Wenatchee and Entiat subbasins. The proponents’ state that many of the actions needed to recover salmonids (e.g., floodplain and side channel reconnection, and increasing river sinuosity) require large land areas. It is acknowledged that such projects often face two obstacles. One is to obtain permission from landowners to conduct interventions at this scale. Reconnection to side channels and floodplains often takes farmlands out of production. Secondly, the effectiveness of these projects may be affected by the actions of nearby landowners, a process referred to as fragmentation. Consequently, willing landowners with large property holdings are needed for such projects to go forward. A companion CTCR project (200810400) has acquired large properties that can accommodate such improvements in all the above subbasins. Having a common owner and implementer (CTCR) enhances the likelihood that largescale restoration actions can be successfully carried out by the proponents.

The proposal does not explicitly state how restoration projects are prioritized. However, it appears that prioritization is based on the 2020 report on Habitat Action Prioritization within the Upper Columbia River Basin that was developed by the Regional Technical team (RTT), which was cited in the OBMEP proposal (page 20). The proponents should clarify this explicitly in the future.

The proponents are proposing that this project subsume two other projects (Restore Salmon Creek Anadromous Fish 199604200 and Land & Water Acquisition 200810400) and become the Upper Columbia Habitat Implementation Project (UCHIP). The ISRP agrees that this combination makes sense as those projects are also conducted by the CTCR, many of the staff work on all projects, and the objectives are much the same.

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:

1. Documentation of methods. The ISRP would appreciate knowing where the methods have been documented and if there is a summary document that describes the project’s methods in detail.
2. Guidance for Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Implementation Project. The ISRP believes that the new UCHIP should also subsume Project 200810200 (Okanogan Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Implementation). UCHIP should provide this project with guidance to identify ecological objectives and endpoints by the next annual report.
3. Strategy for working with landowners. Does the UCHIP have an established strategy for working with landowners based on existing relationships? Please provide this as part of your next annual report.
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 Upper Columbia River Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan subbasins. 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 overall purpose of the project, to assist in the recovery of upper Columbia spring Chinook and summer steelhead in the Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee subbasins by implementing habitat restoration actions is well described. The proposal’s Timeline provides additional information on when implementation tasks associated with each objective are expected to occur by subbasin. Expected results are shown in both the project’s objectives and Timeline chart.

The proposal includes SMART objectives for most of its goals. Most of the objectives are implementation objectives for habitat restoration actions (e.g., numbers of pieces of wood, acres of floodplain reconnected, mile of stream with riparian planting and fencing, miles of side channel created or reconnected, numbers of barriers removed). The ISRP commends the proponents for developing quantitative objectives with explicit time frames. The objectives do not, however, identify the intended biological outcomes (e.g., juvenile abundance of salmon and steelhead, numbers of outmigrating smolts, numbers of returning adults, numbers of redds, proportions of natural-origin adult salmon and steelhead). Do the proponents have explicit outcomes that can be developed and evaluated in coordination with OBMEP? Does the project assume that designing and implementing its restoration actions based on up-to-date landscape assessments, subbasin planning, regional recovery strategies and priorities, regional prioritization processes that have been reviewed extensively, and best management practices, make it unnecessary to develop quantitative biological and physical objectives? The ISRP also commends the proponents’ development of a sound landscape framework for their restoration actions, but we encourage the proponents to develop explicit physical and biological objectives for specific projects where the intended outcomes have been identified during planning and design. This will be especially true as OSHIP becomes UCHIP with newly subsumed projects and expands into two new subbasins.

Q2: Methods

Project restoration actions are based on information and prioritization processes that are part of the Okanogan Subbasin Plan, Methow Subbasin Plan, Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team Biological Strategy, UCSRB Prioritization Web Map, Habitat Action Prioritization, and Okanogan and Methow Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment tools. The proposal refers to the Biological Strategy from 2017, but the most recent update is from 2019. It is not clear if the project is using the most recent version of the Biological Strategy, but we assume they are doing so based on their participation in the RTT.

RTT (Regional Technical Team). 2019. A biological strategy to protect and restore salmonid habitat in the upper Columbia region. A report to the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. Previous versions in 2000, 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2019. https://www.ucsrb.org/science-resources/reports-plans/recovery-plan/#

The proposal describes overall methods and types of actions but does not describe the methods used or cite a document where the methods have been documented. If the methods have not been summarized in a document, we encourage the project to create a compendium of its most used methods as a basis for training future employees, collaborating with other groups, preparing future proposals, and recording the history of the project’s action and evolution.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal indicates that projects have been evaluated using habitat analysis in EDT and biological evaluation of juvenile production and adult returns through OBMEP. The proponents indicate that future projects will be evaluated using results from OBMEP, but do not explain which projects, quantitative objectives or physical and biological outcomes will be monitored. The ISRP is asking the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to work with other projects like OBMEP and OSHIP to create an overview of the specific monitoring provided for each habitat restoration project. We ask the proponents of this project to work with Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project and OBMEP to create this matrix and crosswalk of restoration actions and monitoring methods.

Under lessons learned, the project indicates it will reestablish side channels to be inundated seasonally during emigration (April thru July) only to reduce the amount of habitat for non-native species while maintaining some benefit to native salmonids of off channel habitat improvement. Would this negate the refuge benefit of floodplain reconnections and side channel creation during earlier winter floods? Are rain-dominated or rain-on-snow floods in winter substantial events under the hydrologic regimes of these streams? Is flood refuge during winter floods in these streams an important habitat function for native species, including anadromous salmonids?

Given that the project proposes to expand its geographical scope, it would be useful to describe how the project intends to coordinate with other major restoration projects in the Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee basins. In particular, the proponents should describe their plans to coordinate with the Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat Project and the Upper Columbia Habitat Restoration Project.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal lists nine selected projects completed since 2007 but does not indicate how many projects have been completed in total or what was accomplished overall. It provides some quantification of the area, length of channel, changes in road density, numbers of screens, and barriers removed as part of some of the selected projects but describes other outcomes only generally. Biological outcomes are reported only as anecdotal observations of the presence of fish. Given the abundance of landscape-level habitat information, monitoring results, and body of scientific studies in the basins, the project should be able to describe the overall projected benefits to fish and wildlife based on its past actions and intended outcomes. The ISRP encourages the proponents to develop such a comprehensive assessment of their contribution to fish and wildlife to document the successes of the project and serve as a model for other projects and geographic areas.

The ISRP commends the proponents for their ability to include and gain cooperation with a variety of stakeholders including irrigators, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Washington Water Trust, and the Washington Department of Ecology. These collaborations have allowed the proponents to ensure that the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek has a perennial flow for the first time in 100 years. However, the proposal submitted contains no objectives for the 2021 - 2023 period and no budget for 2021 to 2027. It appears that the proponents are waiting for the results of ongoing water monitoring and habitat evaluation to determine their next objective. The proponents also indicate that this project will become part of another project the Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Implementation Program (OSHIP #200722400) in 2023.

Uncertainty exists on whether current conditions in the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek can accommodate summer steelhead. Two independent assessments, by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) and the BOR, are being conducted to determine if additional water releases or habitat restoration actions will be needed in lower Salmon Creek to support summer steelhead. Information obtained by these studies will be evaluated by the Okanogan Irrigation District, CTCR, BOR, and NOAA.

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. If the project is subsumed by OSHIP, the annual report for the OSHIP project should address these conditions, e.g., under a section on Salmon Creek.

1. SMART objectives. Provide SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for each of the major goals and incremental actions.
2. Project evaluation and adjustment. Develop an adaptive management plan describing how each of the major phases of the project will be sequenced, coordinated, monitored, and evaluated, with information on known decision points, explicit schedules for evaluation and decision-making, and documentation of decisions and project changes.
3. Risk of not accomplishing outcomes. Provide an assessment of the relative risks associated with not accomplishing specific outcomes related to instream flow, instream habitat, entrainment in the diversion canal, and sedimentation and the consequence for the overall project if specific elements are unsuccessful.
4. Adequate future habitat. Provide an assessment of the potential for the proposed actions to create habitat conditions that will be adequate for steelhead survival over the next 50 years. It appears that current conditions are marginal, and it is unclear if the proposed actions would create adequate habitat for steelhead in the face of changes in climate and land use.
5. 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 Upper Columbia River Programmatic Habitat Project (201000100) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan subbasins. 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 proposal identifies two goals: 1) reconnecting Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River to reestablish anadromous steelhead and 2) ensuring that habitat in lower Salmon Creek is adequate to support juvenile steelhead [and returning adult steelhead]. The proposal does not include SMART objectives. Given what is known about the lower 4.3 miles of the stream, current habitat conditions, and habitat requirements of steelhead, it should be possible to develop clear quantitative objectives with specific time frames.

It appears that the goals of this project are intertwined with that of the Okanogan Basin Monitoring & Evaluation Program (OBMEP 200302200) and that the separate goal of this project is to find ways to reconnect the lower 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River to help reestablish anadromous salmonids. The proponents do not clearly state their objectives, and it appears that objectives will be determined between now and 2023 based on the results of other studies. A list of possible objectives is presented in the Methods section of the proposal, and they are not stated as SMART objectives but rather as “There are three factors that are likely limiting production in Salmon Creek.” (Proposal page 11).

Q2: Methods

The Methods section describes a sequence of steps used to address three limiting factors: 1) increase flow, which has two options (increase storage in Salmon Lake for release as needed or increase benefit of flow in the lower reach using inverted vortex rock weirs), 2) increase the effectiveness of irrigation diversion screens, and 3) reduce local sediment inputs to the creek. The proposal does not explain the ecological assessments that determined that these factors were the highest priorities, as opposed to other potential limiting factors or alternative actions. Interestingly, the proponents list sources to fund these actions (e.g., BOR, Okanogan Irrigation District, State of Washington) but do not include BPA. Furthermore, the proponents do not include a budget but state: “By FY2023 this project is projected to be encapsulated to what is currently the Okanogan Subbasin Habitat Improvement Program. Therefore, no budget is identified for this project.” (Proposal page 27).

The proposal involves multiple steps and analyses to accomplish its overall goals. As such, the proposal should present the anticipated actions in a series of phases. Each phase should have explicit targets necessary for completion before moving onto the next phase. The current description of the assessment of three potential limiting factors and subsequent steps to address them needs to be prioritized. If any one of the three are unsuccessful, it is uncertain whether the project should proceed further. The proponents have sufficient information to do a risk analysis to determine thresholds for proceeding with the project. The project should incorporate such a risk analysis as an initial step before proceeding with the three options to deal with limiting factors.

To provide additional instream flow, the proponents identify two options: 1) additional storage in the reservoir and 2) additional instream storage. The additional-storage option for the reservoir requires moving utilities and septic systems of lakeside residences, a step that would require additional funding from Washington State. It also requires a survey of the integrity of the dam and potential risks. The proposal also lists Option A1, which creates more storage in the current channel with existing flow by building rock weirs. The proposal indicates that these structures would provide rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead and would not increase stream temperatures substantially. The proposal does not explain how these pools and the increased in-channel residence time would not result in greater rates of warming from solar radiation. The proponents should assess the potential for increased stream temperatures as a result of the rock weirs.

A second limiting factor is entrainment of fish in a diversion canal. A series of remedial actions have been taken previously, but fish are still being trapped behind drum screens. Negotiations for operation of a pump station are underway, but the outcome is uncertain.

A third limiting factor is sedimentation. Most of the reach currently lacks riparian vegetation and has steep vertical banks. Proponents propose to install instream structures to deflect high velocity flow away from banks, plant riparian vegetation, fence livestock away from the stream, and move agriculture practices back from the adjacent stream banks. All of these actions will require landowner approval. The proposal does not indicate how long it will take for these collective actions to change the rate of sedimentation and the degree to which sedimentation is anticipated to be reduced. It is not clear how the instream rock structures would be consistent with high quality habitat for juvenile steelhead and spawning by adult steelhead.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

No formal adaptive management cycle is described. The proponents indicate that two independent habitat assessments on the lower reach of Salmon Creek are planned. Results from these assessments will be used to determine the next steps for the project. A companion project, OBMEP estimates the abundance of adult and juvenile summer steelhead in Salmon Creek. These data will be used to track trends in abundance over time.

Although it is not clearly stated, it appears that the proponents of this project are tasked with overseeing restoration of the physical environment (i.e., flow and sediment) of Salmon Creek and that OBMEP will monitor the abundance of juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids (primarily steelhead). There is no description of how results of OBMEP monitoring will influence the actions of this project. The proposal indicates that monitoring will be conducted for some of the options for addressing limiting factors but does not describe an evaluation process that will be used.

The proposal indicates in Attachment E that the BOR will conduct an instream flow and habitat assessment study in spring and early summer 2021. There is no description of how the assessment will be conducted or evaluated. As examples, will the instream flow analysis also examine flows during winter? Is habitat in lower Salmon Creek adequate for overwintering for juvenile steelhead, or will they be forced to move to downstream reaches in the Okanogan River to survive through winter? How will the project determine the abundance of steelhead as opposed to resident rainbow trout? The proposal indicates that instream structures will be monitored to determine their ability to remain intact during high flows. It is unclear what the project would do if observations demonstrate the structures have been changed. No performance criteria are described. Additionally, the proposal indicates juvenile steelhead will be enumerated to determine if their utilization of the lower reach increases. No information is provided on how this will be monitored or if other monitoring projects of the CTCR will assist.

The proposal does not describe any monitoring related to actions to increase the effectiveness of diversion screens. Minimum performance criteria should be identified and used in assessing advisability of proceeding.

The proposal does not describe any monitoring related to actions to decrease sedimentation in the 4.3 miles of lower Salmon Creek. The EDT analysis conducted by OBMEP could provide a basis for estimating the degree to which sediment conditions could be improved and the degree to which these could potentially influence steelhead survival. This information could be used to develop performance metrics and identify monitoring methods and timing.

The proponents should provide more complete descriptions of the collective monitoring and evaluation of attempts to improve conditions in the lower Salmon Creek.

Most importantly, the project should identify an explicit sequence of adaptive evaluation steps for the major phases of this project. This sequence should include the specific decisions, participants in the decision-making process, timing of meetings and decisions, and alternative modifications of the project based on potential outcomes.

Proponents identify climate change as one of the most significant confounding factors. They indicate that the NorWest model projects water temperatures in the lower reach of Salmon Creek will average approximately 9°C by 2040; however, data loggers recorded maximum temperatures as high as 22.6°C in 2020. The proponents hope that increased stream flow will provide better thermal conditions and offset potential adverse temperatures in the future, but no evidence or analyses are provided to support that desired outcome. Other potential confounding factors that are not identified in the proposal are future changes in land use, increases in human population, and changes in water quality. Have the proponents conducted a worse case analysis to determine the risks they face in moving forward with this project?

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proponents’ ability to increase the amount and availability of water in Salmon Creek has had positive benefits to fish (i.e., steelhead). The number of juvenile O. mykiss are among the highest in Okanogan River tributaries since 2014. It is not clear whether these are steelhead and not resident rainbow trout. Additionally, the proportion of natural origin returning (pNOR) adult steelhead in the creek has been increasing consistently since 2009. The absolute number of natural origin adult steelhead, however, has remained about 30 during that time.

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

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

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

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

A response is requested to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two resumes are missing.

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

ISRP Comments on the Specific Responses

ISRP Preliminary Comment 1. Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal needs to better describe how the project fits into regional restoration programs and the Biological Opinion. The proposal indicates that the project contributes to implementing BiOp RPA 34 and 35, but these are not mentioned in the significance to regional programs section. The proposal should provide explicit statements on RPA elements from the BiOp and restoration delisting under the Upper Columbia recovery plan. The presentation to the ISRP that showed the fish abundance targets for the subbasin, and for Salmon Creek for the recovery plan, subbasin plan, and tribal plans, is the type of explicit information the ISRP believes is essential to provide context and justification for the project tasks.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The additional information provided by the sponsor does not directly answer the questions posed by the ISRP and should be improved in future proposals. A sentence each is provided on RPA 34 and 35, but the text does not explain whether the actions in the proposal are explicitly identified in the RPA(s) and what the actions in the RPA(s) are. For example, the ISRP is under the impression that RPA 35 has a table 5 that gives improvement in survival assigned to habitat actions in specific tributaries. The ISRP believes this type of information is needed to establish the context for the project. Where the response cites the Recovery Plan and BiOp, details are lacking about the role that Salmon Creek would play in the recovery of steelhead. The ISRP understands the general relationship to the Recovery Plan and BiOp; it is the specific details that are requested. These specific details provide the basis for establishing quantitative objectives, monitoring and evaluation, and triggers to consider additional actions under adaptive management. Consequently, the ISRP believes the request is not just pedantic, but forms the foundation for guiding the project in the medium- and longterm. In the response to the ISRP, text is copied from a draft Okanogan Subbasin Steelhead Hatchery Master Plan. A portion of that text describes recovery plan standards for abundance and spatial distribution of steelhead in the Okanogan River subbasin. A succinct summary of those criteria and how the habitat restoration in Salmon Creek is intended to improve survival in Salmon Creek and contribute to achieving steelhead delisting is needed in future proposals.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 2. Technical Background (problem statement): The technical background provided in the proposal is very brief, but what is included suggests that a fairly thorough assessment of habitat conditions and fish distribution in the stream has been conducted. The proposal indicates that Salmon Creek contains much of the suitable spawning habitat for spring Chinook and steelhead in the Okanogan system. Restoring summer passage through the 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek below the irrigation diversion was identified as the second restoration priority in an assessment conducted on the Okanogan. The proposal makes an effective argument that water quality and physical habitat in upper Salmon Creek are worth the effort of restoring its connection to the Okanogan River during the migration (and irrigation) season.

The information that was presented in the proposal is sufficient to indicate that the habitat above the diversion is of high quality, supporting the high priority of reconnecting the upper watershed with the Okanogan River. A more detailed discussion of the results of the habitat and fish assessments that have been completed are needed to determine the opportunities for an RM&E program to assess response of the system to improved summer flows.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response references a quantitative spawning habitat survey in 1995 and another survey in 1998. In addition, the response states “preliminary estimates of smolt production within pool tail-out regions indicated this 4-mile reach of Salmon Creek has the potential to produce more than 90,000 summer steelhead and 123,000 Chinook salmon smolts at a survival-to-emergence of 10%.” These statements suggest that existing habitat inventories are either over a decade old or contain considerable uncertainty. Periodic (every 1 or 2 years) habitat measurements will greatly assist project staff in determining the productive capacity of upper Salmon Creek for steelhead and Chinook, and also in identifying biological “hotspots” for spawning and rearing.

The response includes information from recent fish assessments (Fisher and Arterburn 2003, 2005) providing support for the sponsors ability to assess and evaluate the flow and channel for steelhead migration. As noted in other sections of this review, clear metrics for evaluation and links to recovery and BiOp plans are still needed.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 3. The objectives focus solely on recovery of summer steelhead. They provide a quantitative goal (Objective 2, return of 250 adult natural origin steelhead/yr). The introduction indicates that Salmon Creek also is an important spawning and rearing area for spring Chinook. Is the focus only on steelhead due to the fact that spring Chinook access the upper watershed prior to low flow becoming an issue below the diversion structure? Is there habitat below the diversion that would be improved by enhancing flow that could be valuable to spring Chinook?

ISRP Comments on the Response: Explicit answers to the two questions were not provided. The implication from the text is that the focus is on steelhead because they are listed and spring Chinook in the Okanogan are extirpated and not essential for recovery of that ESU, and that the volume of water for Chinook restoration (reintroduction) is not available at this time. There is text that states that spring Chinook are using Salmon Creek, but whether this use involves the low flow channel and leased water is not clear.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 4. The problem statement section of the proposal needs to include the TRT status review summary of recent abundance and productivity for the focal species, the near-term and long-term objectives under the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery and Subbasin Plan, and discuss the extent to which those objectives are believed to be accomplished by continued implementation of the water lease.

ISRP Comments on the Response: Text in the proposal and the response provide much of the desired information. However some of the information remains in a general, rather than specific format and often without sufficient clarity. For example, in the response to the ISRP the sponsor answers the query by stating the BiOp population target is 500 steelhead in the Okanogan River subbasin and that all four populations must meet their targets to achieve the BiOp goal. But the four populations are not mentioned, nor are the targets for each of the populations. In this proposal the population of particular interest is Salmon Creek, but the overall context will aid in understanding the restoration in a subbasin level framework. The proposal goes on to state that Salmon Creek is considered a minor spawning area for steelhead and that the Colville Tribe estimates that 159 steelhead spawners are needed to achieve restoration objectives. If the subbasin goal is 500 steelhead, 159 in Salmon Creek would seem like a major, not minor contributor.

ISRP Preliminary Comment: During the site visit, the ISRP engaged in a discussion of the source populations being used to supplement and reintroduce steelhead to Salmon Creek. A paragraph or two in the problem statement should be added to provide a summary of the planning that has taken place in this regard. The ISRP concern is that steelhead from a population whose replication in Salmon Creek might contribute little to meeting genetic restoration objectives would constrain the full benefits of the project. An explanation is needed of steelhead population structure – independent populations, and major population groups – and priorities for obtaining stock for reintroduction or supplementation.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The text explaining the status of Wells Hatchery stock and the text from the draft hatchery plan given in response to 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions provides sufficient explanation of the recovery planning at this time. The topic can be reviewed in greater detail if the draft master plan is submitted. The ISRP is curious whether this plan will replace the Cassimer Bar Master Plan that began review several years ago.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 5. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results).

Accomplishments, Results: A paragraph in the proposal states, “Since 2009, there has been a conservative estimate of 662 adult steelhead which returned to Salmon Creek. This is a conservative estimate since counts are conducted via a video weir which becomes circumvented at flows in excess of 20 cfs.” This information indicates that there is an active program in place to assess fish populations in the Salmon Creek watershed, but no details about this program, or how it will be used to judge the effectiveness of improved passage below the diversion, was included in the proposal.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response states that a primary metric for the project is the ratio of steelhead migrating and spawning above the point of diversion. The ratio of steelhead had been 2 fish spawning below for each fish spawning above in 2009 and 2010, whereas in 2011 and 2012 the ratio was 3 fish spawning above the diversion for 2 fish spawning below.

The ISRP believes metrics for the project need to be established, monitored, and used for evaluation and adaptive management. This important aspect of the project needs to be completed.

ISRP Preliminary Comment: The proposal needs to include succinct details on the video weir to enumerate adult steelhead and salmon, methods used to count emigrating smolts, survival of smolts to points downstream that is hopefully contrasted with other locations, a physical condition monitoring program for the channel, and to estimate the juvenile production and adult population generated by spawning and rearing in the eleven miles of now accessible habitat.

ISRP Comments on the Response: General information on the video weir is provided. Additional details are needed that provide evidence that the precision of estimates is adequate to guide management decisions on whether restoration standards have been met, whether additional flows and habitat is needed below the point of diversion, and whether continuation of the water lease is justified.

Adaptive Management:

The response to the ISRP provides adequate explanation of the state of adaptive management for this project. It is evident that the sponsor and various co-managers are engaged in longerterm discussions about the need for water and habitat for steelhead in Salmon Creek. Linkage needs to be clearly established between the decisions that will need to be made and project metrics and subbasin level M&E. The ISRP remains concerned that development of metrics for project evaluation is insufficiently linked to plans for data acquisition. The project has progressed to the point where a well-articulated decision framework would be useful.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 6. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response provides improved understanding of the role of the hatchery program and OBMEP. The ISRP believes the hatchery program needs independent review soon and that an M&E plan for this project needs to be clearly established. The response states that OBMEP collects both habitat and fish data throughout the Okanogan subbasin, including Salmon Creek. However, the response goes on to state that OBMEP is currently proposing to estimate juvenile production in Salmon Creek. Assessing juvenile production seems essential to the ISRP. As stated earlier, the ISRP is concerned that project metrics, M&E, and adaptive management is proceeding in an ad hoc manner, and that the project has developed to the point where a more formal decision framework is required. The ISRP appreciated the hatchery program draft, as it clarified the status of anticipated artificial production for conservation and harvest.

ISRP Preliminary Comment 7. Deliverables, Work Elements: The work element and deliverable on the purchase of 1,200 acre feet of water is adequate. The work elements and deliverables on inspection and maintenance of the low flow channel are inadequate.

ISRP Comments on the Response: The response provides a summary of challenges with maintaining the migration channel and the approach used for inspection. The proposal should provide a description of a flexible inspection and maintenance plan that is justified.

An M&E and Adaptive Management decision framework should be developed within the next three years and reviewed by the ISRP. The M&E framework should include an annual habitat survey of Salmon Creek above the low flow channel to verify that spawning and rearing conditions remain favorable for steelhead and Chinook; objectives for juvenile outmigration, adult immigration, and low flow channel habitat, along with metrics for each; a plan to collect the data to evaluate the metrics; and an adaptive management decision framework to guide alternative selection based on empirical results. The data being generated through the OBMEP program could provide a sound foundation for a very effective adaptive management process. The project sponsors should develop a framework with clear, quantitative objectives and specific sets of circumstances that would initiate changes in management approach.

Annual habitat surveys above the low flow channel are needed to establish that assumptions about the suitability of upper Salmon Creek for the two species are supported empirically. This is important for two reasons: first, because evidence is needed that adequate flows for fish passage continue to be the most important limiting factor in the system (and not some other environmental parameter), and second, because realistic adult escapement and smolt production targets require up-to-date data on habitat quality and quantity in order to help project sponsors set quantitative population goals that balance artificial and natural production. The response mentions the Intrinsic Potential of Salmon Creek, but calculation of the Intrinsic Potential metric must be based on current habitat data.

This project is straightforward and involves maintaining a low-flow bypass channel that restores the connection between Salmon Creek and its parent stream, the Okanogan River, as well as negotiating water leases and other agreements with the Okanogan Irrigation District that will increase flow in lower Salmon Creek and the bypass channel, which will improve conditions during the primary steelhead and Chinook migration period as well as facilitating the downstream passage of smolts. According to the proposal, Salmon Creek was historically one of the most important spawning and rearing tributaries in the Okanogan River system, but anadromous salmonids were extirpated when Conconnuly Dam was constructed in the early 1900s. Restoration of flow to the lower portion of the Salmon Creek drainage network during late spring and summer is clearly an important restoration goal for the Okanogan system.

The proposal, however, is incomplete and revision is required. It does not provide sufficient background context on the status of the focal species; benefits that are anticipated to be accomplished by this project including a timeframe for improvements in abundance; relationship of the project to steelhead recovery and delisting; and criteria for evaluating success.

The proposal incompletely describes the work elements to be conducted by this project. Additional detail on the specific actions that will be undertaken to maintain the low-flow channel and how they will be sequenced from 2014 to 2017 should be provided. Finally, a much more complete description of the relationship between this project and projects in the Okanogan watershed that are monitoring fish and aquatic habitat condition should be included in the proposal.

Responses requested: See each proposal review topic for questions to be addressed in the proposal revision.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The proposal needs to better describe how the project fits into regional restoration programs and the Biological Opinion. The proposal indicates that the project contributes to implementing BiOp RPA 34 and 35, but these are not mentioned in the significance to regional programs section. The proposal should provide explicit statements on RPA elements from the BiOp and restoration delisting under the Upper Columbia recovery plan. The presentation to the ISRP that showed the fish abundance targets for the subbasin, and for Salmon Creek for the recovery plan, subbasin plan, and tribal plans, is the type of explicit information the ISRP believes is essential to provide context and justification for the project tasks.

Technical Background (problem statement): The technical background provided in the proposal is very brief, but what is included suggests that a fairly thorough assessment of habitat conditions and fish distribution in the stream has been conducted. The proposal indicates that Salmon Creek contains much of the suitable spawning habitat for spring Chinook and steelhead in the Okanogan system. Restoring summer passage through the 4.3 miles of Salmon Creek below the irrigation diversion was identified as the second restoration priority in an assessment conducted on the Okanogan. The proposal makes an effective argument that water quality and physical habitat in upper Salmon Creek are worth the effort of restoring its connection to the Okanogan River during the migration (and irrigation) season.

The information that was presented in the proposal is sufficient to indicate that the habitat above the diversion is of high quality, supporting the high priority of reconnecting the upper watershed with the Okanogan River. A more detailed discussion of the results of the habitat and fish assessments that have been completed are needed to determine the opportunities for an RM&E program to assess response of the system to improved summer flows.

The objectives focus solely on recovery of summer steelhead. They provide a quantitative goal (Objective 2, return of 250 adult natural origin steelhead/yr). The introduction indicates that Salmon Creek also is an important spawning and rearing area for spring Chinook. Is the focus only on steelhead due to the fact that spring Chinook access the upper watershed prior to low flow becoming an issue below the diversion structure? Is there habitat below the diversion that would be improved by enhance flow that could be valuable to spring Chinook?

Specific quantitative targets for steelhead adult abundance and juvenile emigration are absent. A summary of long-term biological goals and some time frame for achieving the goals are needed. The project has apparently established an intermediate term (12-year) lease for water to wet a constructed low-flow channel, but there is no indication of what is going to happen in the longer term (post agreement) and what level of natural fish production is needed to expand on this initial agreement.

The problem statement section of the proposal needs to include the TRT status review summary of recent abundance and productivity for the focal species, the near-term and long-term objectives under the Fish and Wildlife Program, BiOp, Recovery and Subbasin Plan, and discuss the extent to which those objectives are believed to be accomplished by continued implementation of the water lease. During the site visit, the ISRP engaged in a discussion of the source populations being used to supplement and reintroduce steelhead to Salmon Creek. A paragraph or two in the problem statement should be added to provide a summary of the planning that has taken place in this regard. The ISRP concern is that steelhead from a population whose replication in Salmon Creek might contribute little to meeting genetic restoration objectives would constrain the full benefits of the project. An explanation is needed of steelhead population structure – independent populations, and major population groups – and priorities for obtaining stock for reintroduction or supplementation.

Objectives: There are two objectives identified: (OBJ-1) restore instream flow in Salmon Creek; and (OBJ-2) Restore instream flows to Salmon Creek. The difference in deliverables is that Objective 2 involves the lease of water while Objective 1 includes the lease of water and maintenance of a constructed low-flow channel. For both objectives a description of how success will be evaluated is needed. These metrics need to include physical habitat and biological targets.

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

Accomplishments and results: Although the project dates from 1996, the proposal describes work on the bypass channel and securing the 12-year water lease agreement with the Okanogan Irrigation District since 2009. Results therefore pertain only to bypass channel construction and maintenance, and to extending the water lease to provide additional flow. In addition, the project sponsors wish to modify the bypass channel so it provides passage for adult steelhead at 10 cfs instead of ~25 cfs.

A paragraph in the proposal states, “Since 2009, there has been a conservative estimate of 662 adult steelhead which returned to Salmon Creek. This is a conservative estimate since counts are conducted via a video weir which becomes circumvented at flows in excess of 20 cfs.” This information indicates that there is an active program in place to assess fish populations in the Salmon Creek watershed, but no details about this program, or how it will be used to judge the effectiveness of improved passage below the diversion, was included in the proposal.

The proposal also states that hatchery steelhead smolts have been used to document adequacy of the channel. However, no data are presented and no explanation is provided on the specifics of the monitoring, numbers of hatchery steelhead juveniles or smolts released, and estimates of natural smolt production. Fish use of the bypass channel should be assessed, and estimates of adults in and smolts out (both wild and hatchery) are needed to evaluate the biological effectiveness of this restoration effort. Specifically, this project needs at least three elements for evaluation: 1) emigration of stocked and natural smolts, 2) upstream migration of adult steelhead, and 3) physical condition of the constructed channel.

The proposal identified that recent flows have damaged the channel that stocked smolts presumably left the system and returned as adults – with at least 600 adults returning in the past few years. Mention is made of a video weir to monitor adult passage. The proposal needs to include succinct details on the video weir to enumerate adult steelhead and salmon, methods used to count emigrating smolts, survival of smolts to points downstream that is hopefully contrasted with other locations, a physical condition monitoring program for the channel, and to estimate the juvenile production and adult population generated by spawning and rearing in the eleven miles of now accessible habitat.

Adaptive Management: The adaptive management section of the proposal simply indicates that changes in water releases from Conconully Reservoir and alterations in the release location of steelhead smolts have been implemented or are being considered. There is no indication that these changes were linked in any way to an RM&E program that indicated that these changes could be beneficial (although the water release issue arose because of damage to the low flow channel). This project would benefit from a formal adaptive management process.

Two instances of adaptive management appeared in the proposal with one appearing in the secondary focal species section. The first described altered water management to reduce damage to the bypass channel, presumably to streambanks, during high flow events. This suggests that project managers are not allowing the bypass channel to interact with its riparian area in a way that would mimic a stream's natural interaction with its floodplain. There may be good reasons for doing this, but we caution against taking a hard bioengineering approach to fish habitat in instances where natural meander processes can yield long-term habitat benefits. The second example is the institution of a sport fishery targeted at non-native species in Salmon Creek. This seems like a good idea as long as there is not excessive mortality to focal species.

Evaluation of Results

Result reporting is brief, so retrospective comments on the project by the ISRP are therefore incomplete. Water leases and low-flow channel construction have been achieved. Removing migration barriers is argued to have substantial potential to contribute to restoration of salmon because intact spawning and rearing habitat is available and salmon abundance and productivity response will be quick. Restoration of access in Salmon Creek could contribute to estimating the benefits from this action, but the data presented are insufficient to establish reasonable conclusions on when, or if, the project may accomplish the steelhead and spring Chinook restoration objectives.

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

Project relationships are not explained at all in the proposal. This omission is a substantial deficiency for assessing the effectiveness of this project. The proposal indicates that the sponsors are not requesting support for RM&E. But there are a number of RM&E efforts in the Okanogan system that are likely collecting information that would help to evaluate the effectiveness of reconnecting Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River, and which could greatly benefit this project. This expensive effort incurs ongoing costs for water purchase. Some understanding of the benefit being derived in terms of fish production would be very important to determine the value of investing in projects of this type. The proposal should have described RM&E efforts occurring in Salmon Creek that are collecting data relevant to this project and should have indicated how the sponsors intend to use this information to improve project effectiveness going forward by using an adaptive management plan.

This proposal indicates that emerging limiting factors are being considered in restoration planning. The proposal mentions that providing consistent access to Salmon Creek may help mitigate for increased water temperatures caused by climate change. Salmon Creek drains a watershed with a northeastern aspect and has significant spring input. Therefore, it exhibits water temperatures through the summer that are much cooler than those in the Okanogan River and could serve as a thermal refuge if access were possible. There may be little this project can do to address problems related to long-term climate change, but the observation that Salmon Creek maintains a temperature regime more suited to cold water species does reinforce the need to allow salmon and steelhead access to its headwaters. There also are a number of ongoing programs to address impacts from non-native fishes in the Okanogan River. Statements in the proposal about removing invasive species suggest that the restoration project has links to other projects that have not been included in the proposal.

While climate change, predation from invasive bass and brook trout, and instream flows are identified as emerging limiting factors, how they will be addressed through adaptive management is not discussed.

Few details about hatchery releases were given. The proposal does not state what the estimated carrying capacity for juvenile steelhead and Chinook salmon might be in Salmon Creek. At some point such an estimate is needed, because as natural productions ramps up the number of hatchery releases may need to be ramped down.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Purchase of water for instream flow and maintenance of the low flow channel are the primary work elements. It appears that most of the requested funding for channel maintenance is basically for a contingency fund to repair damage should it occur. The ISRP recognizes that it not possible to specifically identify damage that will occur to the channel in the future. However, some explanation of the possible issues that might arise and the work elements and methods required to correct these issues should have been included in the proposal. A general description of deliverables and work elements is given, but the proposal lacked sufficient detail for scientific review. Specifying work actions and a timeline are needed.

Deliverables, Work Elements: The work element and deliverable on the purchase of 1,200 acre feet of water is adequate. The work elements and deliverables on inspection and maintenance of the low flow channel are inadequate.

Metrics: None are given. Monitoring and Evaluation is needed for this project, or linked to data and evaluation performed through other projects. The information provided in the proposal is inadequate.

Methods: None are provided.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Not Applicable. No monitoring methods are provided; funding for monitoring is not requested.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 9:08:24 AM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/27/2013 9:21:30 AM.

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

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

Reconnecting Salmon Creek to the Okanogan River is a worthwhile project that will benefit fish and wildlife. This is an excellent, well thought-out proposal. The proposal provides good information on habitat surveys and is well associated with the subbasin plan. Successful implementation will provide an estimated 11 miles of spawning habitat. This is likely to provide long-term benefits that will persist.

The ISRP was somewhat critical of this restoration plan early on, because of the lack of water in the confluence area coupled with the obvious need to restore access for anadromous fish through the grossly damaged lower reaches of the river, which were clearly impassable to fish. This proposal, which springs from efforts undertaken since our first reviews, has considered those problems and addressed them in a logical and comprehensive manner.

The previous ISRP review raised concerns about the potential benefit compared with the extensive restoration effort needed (and associated extremely high costs), which made this a not fundable proposal. (Insufficient benefit to fish.) In our previous review, the project sponsors estimated that about a potential of 280 steelhead and chinook could benefit from this project. This present proposal describes a reduced effort and addresses some of the concerns with availability of water in the stream and treatment of the alluvial deposit blocking passage at the mouth. This project might warrant a Three-Step review.

We rate this Fundable (Qualified) because of the non-technical question whether the funding of one staff member would be sufficient to supervise this rather complex construction contract. The proposal states that no facilities and equipment are needed. Apparently, this arises from the fact that the construction work will be arranged by contract with experienced contractors.

A more detailed description of the study design for the sponsors 10-year plan to monitor adult returns would improve the proposal. It is possible that M&E activities (e.g., weir construction) might affect non-focal species. The proposal would have been improved by discussion of potential problems.

The proposal would also be improved by a better description of information transfer. The administrative form lists "electronic" transfer, but there is no discussion in the narrative. We found no discussion of long-term storage of data.