This report is the ISRP’s contribution to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 2026 Lands Project Review for the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The Council developed this review process to be a tailored, check-in review of projects that have been reviewed many times and their basic premise and scientific soundness have been accepted by the Council. Consequently, the scope of this ISRP review is different than past ISRP multi-project, category reviews. Rather than a review of the 28 projects included in the Council’s review, the Council asked the ISRP to 1) fully review for its scientific merits the Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program (UWMEP) and 2) provide guidance on a subset of 12 projects, for which the project proponents requested input. The Council did not request additional ISRP review for individual O&M projects for the stated reason that “they have been reviewed in the past and additional review is not necessary at this time.” The ISRP’s review comments and guidance are focused on improving project planning, implementation, and evaluation, in the context of the primary goal of these projects to maintain and restore habitat protected through land acquisition and conservation easements.
To address the Council’s request, the ISRP organized this report in four sections: 1) review background and ISRP process, 2) programmatic comments, 3) scientific review of the UWMEP project, and 4) guidance for the 12 projects that requested ISRP input.
1. Review Background and ISRP Process
Unlike the ISRP’s standard reviews for which the ISRP has a decades-long, established process, there was an element of learning-by-doing for this Lands Review to develop a review process focused on improving project design and implementation. One important element of past reviews missing from the current process was information sharing and open dialogue through a project presentation meeting involving all projects in the Council’s review. The ISRP believes some form of project review and guidance meetings should be a component of future reviews.
2. Programmatic Comments
The ISRP provides programmatic comments on six topics that apply broadly across projects.
The Need for Quantitative Objectives Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management Emerging Opportunities for Regional Monitoring and Shared Technical Infrastructure Dynamic Landscapes: Invasive Species, Wildfire Risk, and Climate Resilience Consistency in Reporting and Updates of Land Management Plans Workshops and Collaborative Technical Exchanges 3. Scientific Review of the UWMEP Project
The Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program (Project #2008-007-00) provides monitoring and evaluation for the five UCUT member tribes to inform restoration and land management actions on wildlife mitigation lands in the upper Columbia, including the Columbia River mainstem and the Okanagan, Spokane, Pend Oreille, Coeur d’Alene, and Kootenai river basins. For the review, the ISRP evaluated project documents provided by the Council and UCUT, and the ISRP met online with UCUT staff to learn more about their project and discuss progress since the last Council and ISRP review of the project in 2018. Based on a review of this information, the ISRP finds the UWMEP approach is an excellent and scientifically sound framework for monitoring wildlife lands projects. The ISRP recommends that the project
4. Guidance for the 12 Projects Requesting Input from the ISRP
The ISRP appreciates the project proponents’ interest in seeking input to improve their projects. The ISRP suggests that project proponents not only read the ISRP’s guidance provided for their project but also read remarks on other projects in the set because the comments often highlight strengths of projects and potential examples of project proponents’ approaches that could apply more broadly to help improve other projects.
The ISRP recognizes the inherent value of the Lands Program and ongoing management for the benefit of mitigation and restoration of key habitats. The ISRP also recognizes the challenges faced by proponents given resource constraints and a rapidly changing environment with enhanced risks from wildfire, drought, and invasive species. The ISRP’s comments are meant to be constructive and sensitive to those challenges.
APPENDICES
