Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

isrp@nwppc.org

Final Review: Arrowleaf/Methow River 

Conservation Project

The Methow River at the Arrowleaf Property, October 24, 2001, photo by Rick Williams

ISRP Reviewers

Charles C. Coutant

Lyman McDonald

Richard R. Whitney

Richard N. Williams

with

Susan Hanna and Jack Griffith

January 11, 2002

ISRP 2002-1
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

1

Final ISRP Review of the Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation 

Project Proposal 2001-037-00 (i.e. 23012)

Introduction

In a December 21, 2001 memorandum, the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) 

requested that the ISRP conduct additional review of the Arrowleaf/Methow Proposal. 

The purpose of this review is to re-consider the project’s consistency with the High 

Priority Solicitation, under which it was originally approved for partial funding as well as 

the biological benefits expected to be secured for listed species by acquiring the site. This 

additional review was proposed by BPA in response to new information observed by the 

ISRP and a BPA representative during a site visit in late October 2001 suggesting that 

lack of water in the Methow might limit the benefits claimed for listed species of spring 

chinook and steelhead.

The proposal was first reviewed by the ISRP in December 2000 as part of the High 

Priority project selection process (attachment 1). It was reviewed ahead of other high 

priority proposals because of the timeline involved in the potential land acquisition. It 

was asserted that if not acted upon by December 21, 2000, the conservation opportunity 

would be lost to other development alternatives. At that time, according to the proposal, 

there would be simultaneous closing in which TPL would purchase the property from the 

developer, convey the conservation easement to WDFW and sell four lots to conservation 

buyers. The budget for purchase is listed as $16.4 million, and the conservation easement, 

which is the subject of the proposal, is $3.75 million. 

In its initial review, the ISRP stated:

The ISRP was unanimous in viewing the acquisition of the Arrowleaf property as 

an important opportunity that should be seized upon by the Council and the 

Bonneville Power Administration. The Arrowleaf property is clearly a desirable 

property with many wildlife and habitat features that approximate pristine 

condition. The proposers clearly describe the importance of the property, its near 

pristine condition, its position as a link between upper and lower habitats 

(particularly salmonid habitats), and the negative ecological consequences of not 

obtaining the property. 

However, the ISRP noted that the proposal was lacking in many details, and it would 

have been better to review the proposal in the context of the Provincial Review Process. 

The ISRP expressed concern that exceptions to larger more formal processes, such as the 

Provincial Review Process, can erode the quality and consistency of the scientific review 

process in the Basin. ISRP review of the Arrowleaf proposal outside of the Provincial 

Review Process combined with the short time available for the proposal review, 

necessitated complete dependence upon the 20 page written proposal, without the benefit 

of an oral presentation by the authors, during which questions and answers would have 

been possible, and without the benefit of a site visit that would have provided a “ground 

truth” reference for evaluating the proposal.
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

2

With this report, the Arrowleaf proposal has essentially completed the full review process 

recommended by the ISRP and adopted by the Council for province reviews (written 

proposal, oral presentation, site visit, and response loop). 

Proposal Submittal and ISRP Review: Arrowleaf/Methow River conservation 

proposals were submitted and reviewed several times including the pre-High Priority 

Review, the High Priority Review, and the 2001 Action Plan Review. The ISRP 

recommendation and comment for each of the solicitations was favorable and is 

accurately represented by the pre-High Priority Review quoted above (indented 

paragraph). In the High Priority project selection process, the proposal received a good 

faith funding recommendation or “B” ranking from the ISRP (attachment 2). The 

Council recommended that the proposal be funded for $2.5 million of the $3.75 million 

requested. Several months later in response to the Action Plan solicitation the project 

sponsors requested an additional $1.25 million, the difference between what was 

requested and recommended for funding in the High Priority process (see attachment 3). 

The Council recommended not funding the Action Plan proposal for the additional $1.25 

million. 

Site Visit and Presentation: On October 23 and 24, 2001, the ISRP conducted a site 

visit of the Columbia Cascade Province, of which the Arrowleaf/Methow Project is a 

part. During the site visit the ISRP heard an oral report on the Arrowleaf/Methow Project 

and was subsequently given a tour of the Arrowleaf Project. During the site visit, the 

Methow River streambed adjoining the property was dry. Questions arose about the 

frequency of dewatering and the potential effect on success of spawning of chinook and 

steelhead in the project area and in areas adjacent to the project. Such questions are a 

normal part of ISRP site visits, and are usually raised in a context where the sponsors are 

able to respond, either during the oral presentation, or in writing prior to finalizing the 

ISRP review. 

Re-review or “Response Loop”: BPA and the Council became aware of the questions 

that arose during the site visit and requested this additional review. The ISRP assigned a 

subcommittee, consisting of Drs. Coutant, McDonald, Williams and Whitney to conduct 

the review. The subcommittee reviewed the original proposal, documents received from 

WDFW and others including comment from interested parties (attachment 4). The ISRP 

is pleased to have this opportunity for additional comment now that the full set of steps 

for review of this project has been completed. The fact that the process was conducted 

out of the usual order has led to some confusion and disruption. This report completes the 

response loop. 

However, this review still misses an important component of the provincial review 

process, which is putting the proposal in the context of a subbasin summary and the 

larger set of proposals in the subbasin and province. The provincial review process allows 

the Council to compare the benefits likely to accrue from this project to those from 

alternative projects.
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

3

The Dewatering Issue

Because the re-review was conducted in response to observations on dewatering, a brief 

discussion of that issue is warranted. WDFW and others raise a fundamental question as 

to whether the issue of dewatering was adequately addressed in the original proposal and 

was missed by the ISRP (Director Koenings’ letter of November 30, 2001 to Chairman 

Cassidy, page 4). As noted by Director Koenings, the subject of dewatering is mentioned 

in the original proposal. We find that the subject is raised twice. Once in a sentence on 

page 5 under the heading of “The nature of the threat to be addressed by this proposal and 

the need for early action”. The sentence reads, “Currently, an 11 mile stretch (which 

includes the 4 1⁄2 miles within the property) is occasionally dewatered between September 

and March in dry years.” The context within which the subject is raised could lead the 

reader to conclude that the project would help forestall more frequent dewatering that 

would likely occur with the drilling of wells associated with subdivision of the property. 

The ISRP apparently missed the significance of this statement, which would have been 

easy, given its ambiguity. We do not believe the issue of dewatering was adequately 

addressed in the original proposal, and are pleased to have the additional information 

provided by WDFW and others. The second mention of dewatering is in the discussion 

section “Endangered salmon.” This section states that pools are important beyond their 

function as spawning habitat, as they are the last to dewater. 

The 4 1/2 miles of the Methow River bounded by the Arrowleaf property includes 

active Chinook redds in the 17 spawning pools greater than 5 feet deep (Hopkins 

2000) and 10 side channels, 8 over 1000 ft long. These pools are important beyond 

their function as spawning habitat, as they are the last to dewater (Hopkins 2000) 

and serve as aquatic refugia for many ecosystem elements such as invertebrates in 

the dry season. (High Priority Proposal 23012, page 4)

As noted in the quotation above, our interest focused on the matter of salmon spawning 

in the reach, particularly spring chinook. In addition, on page 3, the proposal states 

“Currently, 50% -75% of the depauperate contemporary population of salmon now spawn 

below the index reach [where redd counts are made]. The Arrowleaf property and an area 

just below it (< 2 mile) are the only productive habitats remaining in the upper river 

above the index reach.” The list of objectives provided in the proposal (page 16) includes 

a numbered list, of which number 2 reads “ Maintenance of excellent spawning and 

rearing habitat for listed salmonids as measured by Properly Functioning Conditions of 

the National Marine Fisheries Service – Tasks 4,5,6,8;”. “Maintenance of spawning and 

rearing habitat for anadromous salmonids”, is also given as a measurable biological 

objective on page 7. Given the statements regarding spawning habitat, it is clear why the 

ISRP was puzzled upon visiting this dry reach of river in October 2001.

One obvious question related to dewatering is “How often does dewatering occur, and 

what is its duration?” One of the respondents (headed “Limiting Factors – Executive 

Summary Water Resource Inventory Area 48) cited an observation of dewatering of the 

Methow River in 1898. Mullan, et al., 1992 found this reach dry in the period when they 

visited it in August to October 1987. That reference is not cited in the proposal, although 
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

4

it would have been useful in this context and as a source of information on listed species. 

During the ISRP site visit, we heard from several participants (and see in the public 

comments) that the reach above Mazama and extending to above the Arrowleaf property 

is dry more often than not between September and December (and occasionally from as 

early as August to as late as April). The data given in the report by Vadas, Easterbrooks 

and Tweit attached to the Koenings letter (section “Hydrology of the Arrowleaf Reach”) 

provides the kind of information that should have been included in the original proposal. 

Data provided in that report show that flow in the reach of concern was less than 5 cfs 

(where some stranding/dewatering of redds occurs) for a period of three to five months in 

each of six years out of the eight years in which measurements were made.

Finally, the respondent (headed “Limiting Factors – Executive Summary Water Resource 

Inventory Area 48) refers to a Centennial Clean Water Grant of $500,000 to Okanogan 

County to initiate a comprehensive hydrological study in the Methow watershed. We 

hope that hydrological studies underway in the Methow River will be useful in resolving 

issues similar to the dewatering issue confronted here. From input we received during the 

site visit, such a study needs to take into account the complex geological features of the 

basin. The depth of bedrock relative to the thickness of overlying cobble and other loose 

substrate in the Methow Valley probably varies considerably from one reach to another, 

which alone could account for dewatering of mid-basin reaches. The hydrological studies 

may identify specific reaches in the Methow Valley where dewatering can be countered 

by water-saving actions and other reaches where such actions will have little effect on 

dewatering.

Findings

Per the Council’s request, the ISRP’s review findings are provided in the context of the 

High Priority solicitation criteria, which were much more specific than those provided by 

the 1996 amendment to the Power Act.1 The criteria were organized in three tiers. 

TIER 1 CRITERIA: The threshold (Tier 1) criteria specified that the proposal address 

problems of ESA-listed anadromous fish, 2 be designed for one-time funding, and result in 

immediate on-the-ground benefits. The threshold criteria required that a proposal justify 

expedited consideration by establishing that the proposed action addressed imminent 

risks to the survival of one or more species listed under the ESA. In addition, the 

proposed project must be 1) a time-limited opportunity (e.g. the opportunity to address 

the risk to the species may be lost if the proposal is not implemented in 2001) or 2) 

broadly recognized to achieve direct benefits to anadromous fish. In interpreting 

“imminent risk,” the ISRP focused on whether the project was likely to provide direct 

 

1

 ISRP recommendations are based on a determination that projects: 1) are based on sound science 

principles; 2) benefit fish and wildlife; 3) have a clearly defined objective and outcome; and 4) contain 

provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results. In addition, the ISRP considers whether a project is 

consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Program. These criteria were woven into the high priority criteria.

2

 The ISRP understands that there was enough confusion regarding eligibility of resident fish proposals that 

the ISRP reviewed the five resident fish focused high priority proposals on their merits and reviews this 

project for its ESA listed anadromous and resident fish benefits.
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

5

benefits to an ESA-listed species. Two of the high priority threshold criteria were not 

within the ISRP’s scientific purview and are subject to Council and BPA analysis, 

namely in lieu and permitting (NEPA, ESA, etc.) issues. 

ISRP FINDINGS: As is in our initial high priority review, the ISRP finds that the 

Arrowleaf project meets the basic threshold criteria. However, the observations from the 

site visit and subsequent information regarding dewatering of the Arrowleaf reach of the 

Methow River shift the emphasis of benefits claimed in the original proposal. The ISRP 

findings on the potential benefits to listed species given the dewatering are provided by 

species below.

Spring Chinook. Because of the dewatering, the Arrowleaf Reach does not approach 

what is generally considered suitable spring chinook spawning habitat. Passage and 

rearing for spring chinook would be the main attributes protected by the project. Spring 

chinook are affected by the dewatering, but not to the extent that lack of water in this 

reach represents a threat to their continued existence. Adults migrate upstream in spring 

when the reach is watered and oversummer in the watered reaches, or oversummer and 

spawn below the property. Spawning occurs in the fall in much of the upper watershed 

when the Arrowleaf reach is dewatered or at low water levels. Most spawning is 

necessarily accomplished above or below the dewatered reach; only a few fish apparently 

spawn in the dewatered reach in those years when water is there. Especially fine 

spawning habitat apparently occurs in the upwelling zone immediately downstream of the 

Arrowleaf property. Quality of this upwelling water and spawning habitat would be 

offered a certain, but unknown level of, protection by the proposed conservation 

easements. 

Annually, the dewatered reach serves as valuable juvenile rearing habitat in the spring 

and summer when it is typically watered. In higher water years, the reach probably 

provides important juvenile rearing into the fall and winter months relative to the amount 

of water in it. Additionally, the spring-summer flooding of adjacent once-dry flood plain 

zones probably provides abundant food for the first-year fish. The Vadas et al., report 

also points out the value of the reach for passage of juvenile salmonids that are produced 

upstream. Juveniles produced upstream and from within the Arrowleaf project area 

migrate out in spring when there is always water. However, dewatering the reach in the 

fall months may strand a few young fish. The juvenile rearing, riparian flooding, and 

juvenile passage functions of the reach are important for spring chinook salmon and 

might be adversely affected by development in the reach.

Steelhead: Passage and rearing, and perhaps some spawning, would be the main 

attributes protected by the project. Steelhead are likely little affected by the dewatering of 

the reach adjacent to the Arrowleaf property. Steelhead migrate to the upper watershed 

when the Methow is watered in spring and summer, and smolts move downstream in 

spring when it is again watered. Steelhead apparently spawn adjacent to the Arrowleaf 

property in spring when there is water in the reach, so the fall-dewatered reach could be 

used for spring spawning. We were informed that the river is too high and turbid to have 

actual data on redd counts of steelhead. As with chinook (above), there should be 
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

6

excellent rearing habitat when there is floodwater in spring-summer, even though habitat 

and some fish are probably lost during the drying phase. 

Bull Trout: The value of the property to bull trout is less clear. Bull trout of all ages 

would be expected to be mostly above the Arrowleaf reach during the warmer seasons. 

When dewatering occurs in fall and winter, downstream passage to lower elevations for 

overwintering is likely limited for bull trout. But if dewatering has been a common 

feature for a very long time in this system, these fish must have adapted to it. 

Washington fisheries biologists report that spawning of bull trout does occur on occasion 

adjacent to the property. Rearing and seasonal passage are probably the main attributes

protected by the project.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout: The Arrowleaf reach does not seem to be especially 

critical for westslope cutthroat during the fall and winter dewatered period. Spring 

spawning could occur in the Arrowleaf reach, as would spring-summer rearing. Lost 

passage during dewatered periods does not seem to be critical. Rearing and seasonal 

passage are probably the main attributes protected by the project.

Imminent Risk and Direct Benefits:

The proposal presented a certain and sound strategy involving land acquisition, perpetual 

conservation easements, and limited property sales with conservation easements and 

strict development guidelines to preserve the Arrowleaf/Methow River project area and 

the near pristine nature of its habitat. These actions should protect the important fisheries 

and wildlife habitat attributes of the existing property. Listed anadromous fish species, 

spring chinook and steelhead, are likely to continue to use the area as they now do, for 

passage and rearing, and in a limited fashion, for spawning. 

The Methow River through the Arrowleaf property provides an important connection 

between upriver spawning and rearing habitats (primarily steelhead) and the major spring 

chinook spawning habitat immediately below the Arrowleaf property. Protection of the 

ecological attributes of the Arrowleaf property safeguards the critically important 

adjacent downstream upwelling reach that supports most spring chinook spawning in the 

area. Indeed, this latter point may be one of the most compelling aspects of the proposed 

land acquisition. Hopefully, the protections being sought here for the Arrowleaf property 

are also being sought, or are already in place, for the primary spring chinook spawning 

area immediately downstream of the Arrowleaf property. 

Protections provided by the proposed project are in contrast with potential risks of 

unknown development without the easements in place. Clearly, conservation easements 

are broadly recognized as sound methods to achieve direct benefits to anadromous fish; 

thus, that portion of the threshold criteria is met.
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

7

TIER 2 CRITERIA: Proposals were asked to address two additional tiers of criteria. Six 

Tier 2 criteria were generated from the Fish and Wildlife Program:

• The proposal has measurable, quantitative biological objectives and will result in 

clear benefits to species survival;

ISRP Finding: Met criteria. As a land acquisition project, the proposal did not have 

measurable, quantitative biological objectives. Rather, the project is an attempt to 

secure land and perpetual conservation easements as a way of protecting fish, 

wildlife, and habitat against habitat degradation that might result from other 

potential land use and development. As noted in the proposal, future monitoring 

will be required to ensure that that the present ecological benefits (continued fish 

use and lack of habitat degradation) are maintained. 

• The proposal has immediate, measurable benefits to ESA-listed species; 

ISRP Finding: Met criteria. Again, the project provides immediate benefits that are 

in fact already occurring by guarding against future land use and development that 

could negatively impact fish, wildlife, and habitat in the Arrowleaf project area. 

• The proposal will produce largely self-sustaining habitat after activities are 

completed;

ISRP Finding: Met criteria.

• The proposal will connect patches of high-quality habitat or extend habitat out 

from a core area;

ISRP Finding: Met criteria. This is the primary strength of this proposal.

• The proposal will improve conditions in a 303d water-quality limited stream; 

and/or,

Not Applicable

• The proposal addresses a habitat enforcement issue and results in the protection of 

fish or wildlife habitat (including marine habitats of anadromous species).

Not Applicable

These Tier 2 criteria proved critical in the ISRP’s identification of technically sound 

projects that best meet the intent of the high priority solicitation.

TIER 3 CRITERIA: While not “pass/fail”, the criteria were provided to allow a proposal 

to improve its priority position by demonstrating one or more of the following: 

• The proposal fulfills more than one of the above criteria.

ISRP Finding: Yes

• The proposal shares some of the cost of the action with other entities.

ISRP Finding: Yes

• The proposal is part of a collaborative effort with other entities or have synergistic 

effects with actions implemented by other entities.

ISRP Finding: Likely. 
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

8

• The proposal is recommended by an action plan derived from a science-based 

assessment.

ISRP Finding: Yes, as noted in the first ISRP review. 

• The proposal implements high-priority actions approved by a tribal or state 

governmental authority with fish and wildlife protection responsibility and 

identified by a tribal or state plan as necessary to protect or rebuild fish and/or 

wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.

ISRP Finding: Yes

• The proposal either collects or identifies data that are appropriate for measuring 

biological outcomes identified in the objectives.

ISRP Finding: This is an area of weakness in the proposal and responses, although 

the proposal notes that future monitoring will be required to ensure that that the 

present ecological benefits (continued fish use and lack of habitat degradation) are 

maintained. 

Tier 3 criteria are not all scientific, but are elements that are regularly included in the 

ISRP proposal review. These elements link a project to other actions and increase the 

likelihood of project success.

Conclusion

No new information has been provided in the responses that would call for a change in 

our original recommendation to fund this project. The intact ecosystem, strange as it is 

with seasonal dewatering of sections, seems to have been productive of salmonids and 

worth protecting with the Arrowleaf project. The Methow River upstream and 

downstream of the section that dewaters is good to excellent habitat for listed fish 

species, by all accounts. Although the benefits to spring chinook probably would not be 

substantial, particularly given the size of the present population, water quality for 

downstream spawning, downstream and on site rearing habitat, and passage for fish are 

important attributes that would be protected by the project. 

The upwelling zone at the downstream end of the dewatered zone is likely a primary 

reason the fish did well here historically. Without the dewatered zone, associated 

underground flows and upwelling of ground temperature water (cool in the summer, 

warm in the winter), the downstream spawning area might be less suitable for spawning. 

It is too bad the Arrowleaf project does not actually include the upwelling zone, for that 

zone seems to be the especially unique and valuable chinook spawning habitat that is 

loosely (and uncritically) connected to the property in many of the documents we 

reviewed. Protection of properly functioning floodplain and riparian habitat along the 

upper Methow River from the Lost River confluence, inclusive, downstream to the town 

of Winthrop was identified as the most important recommendation by the Technical 

Advisory Group in a document entitled “Habitat Limiting Factors, Executive Summary, 

Water resource Inventory Area 48, Methow Watershed.” An intact properly functioning 
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

9

ecosystem is a primary attribute offered some additional level of protection by the 

project. 

The land and riparian-floodplain zone of the subject property has considerable wildlife, 

scenic, and other esthetic and recreational values in addition to fish benefits. The 

proposed project would protect most of this wildlife habitat, except for the few relatively 

isolated home sites. Wildlife habitat is a primary attribute that would be protected by the 

project.

Some of the issues raised in the material provided to the ISRP were policy issues beyond 

ISRP purview. The relative merits of who develops the land and whether their zoning 

would have protected the fish and wildlife values is beyond the charge of the ISRP. The 

frequent seasonal drying does look bad for fish (as it did to our surprise during our site 

visit), but was judged to be less critical when factored in with the life cycles of affected 

fish and the entire functioning ecosystem. There are many other water-use issues in the 

Methow Basin that are also beyond the charge of the ISRP. We note that the Council 

must consider these other water issues as well as social and economic issues in arriving at 

a policy decision concerning protection of this property.
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

10

Attachment 1. First ISRP Review of the Arrowleaf Project

INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL

Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

Emerrill@nwppc.org

1.800.452.5161

December 18, 2000

Mr. Frank L. Cassidy, Chair

Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

Review of the High Priority Proposal:

“Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project”

Dear Mr. Cassidy,

At the request of Council and Council Staff (Bob Lohn communication to ISRP Chair 

Rick Williams on 6 December 2000), the ISRP reviewed the “Arrowleaf/Methow River 

Conservation Project” high priority proposal ahead of other High Priority Proposals. 

This is due solely to the timeline involved in the potential land acquisition; if not acted 

upon by December 21, 2000, the conservation opportunity will be lost to other 

development alternatives. 

The ISRP was unanimous in viewing the acquisition of the Arrowleaf property as an 

important opportunity that should be seized upon by the Council and the Bonneville 

Power Administration. The Arrowleaf property is clearly a desirable property with many 

wildlife and habitat features that approximate pristine condition. The proposors clearly 

describe the importance of the property, its near pristine condition, its position as a link 

between upper and lower habitats (particularly salmonid habitats), and the negative 

ecological consequences of not obtaining the property. 

The ISRP typically looks for evidence in habitat restoration and acquisition projects, that 

the project is justified based on a prioritized identification through a watershed 

assessment process. While this does not appear to have been done at the subbasin level 

for the Methow subbasin, the proposal presented convincing documentation from Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Yakama Nation analyses that the Arrowleaf property is 

a priority fish and wildlife acquisition. The map (Figure 2) makes it evident that the 

property is situated where development can have a major effect on the Methow River and 
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

11

its immediate environs, through various means including water withdrawals. Recent 

analysis by WDFW identified the Arrowleaf property and the property immediately 

downstream as the most important elements in the watershed. 

The proposal was somewhat non-standard, which made reviewing it difficult, as did 

reviewing it “out-of-context” with other proposals. As the ISRP has discussed in regard 

to the general subject of land acquisition for wildlife enhancement, it is best to have 

proposals tied to the larger Fish and Wildlife Program framework and based on a 

watershed assessment. The newly established Provincial Review Process is providing this 

context. Without explicit reference to the Fish and Wildlife Program, a subbasin plan, or 

a watershed assessment, it is difficult to assess a single proposal. Putting the proposal in 

the context of a larger set of proposals, such as occurs within the Provincial Review 

Process, would allow the Council to compare the benefits likely to accrue from this

project to those from an alternative project. 

Finally, the proposal was lacking in many details, but did include a general recognition of 

the need for future monitoring and evaluation. It stated:

“As described above, the collection of data for Monitoring and Evaluation of 

variables reflecting the project objectives is a commitment accompanying the 

acquisition. These will include the continuing collection of stream survey data by 

the USFS, the spawning surveys by YIN fisheries, the determination of target 

species, Habitat Suitability Indices, Habitat Units and HEP-based mitigation 

credits, the development of an ecosystem model and collecting data for its 

parameterization and driving variables as described above.”

We encourage further refinement in this area. 

The ISRP recognized the special nature of this project and the need to review it on a very 

short timeframe independently from other projects. Nevertheless, the ISRP is concerned 

that exceptions to larger more formal processes, such as the Provincial Review Process, 

can erode the quality and consistency of the scientific review process in the Basin. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Richard N. Williams

ISRP Chair

ISRP Reviewers: Jack Griffith, Susan Hanna, Lyman McDonald, Richard Whitney, and 

Richard Williams.
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

12

Attachment 2. High Priority Review Excerpts

Category B Proposals - Good Faith Recommendation

These nineteen proposals [of 96 submitted] were judged to meet the threshold criteria and 

likely offer important benefits to ESA listed or threatened species. However, many of the 

proposals failed to provide adequate detail for technical review on issues ranging from 

biological justification, stock status, lack of indication of priority of projects within a 

watershed, or protection and quantification of instream water saving. In spite of these 

deficiencies, the reviewers had some confidence that the proposals would yield important 

benefits to fish and wildlife.

Project ID: 23012

Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project

Province: Columbia Cascade

Subbasin: Methow

Sponsor: TPL and WDFW

Funding Request: $17,055,000

Short Description: The project is an acquisition of the 1020-acre Arrowleaf property on 

the Methow River-- critical habitat for 9 ESA listed species. If not purchased the property 

will be subdivided into 70 lots and much of the upland and riparian habitat will be 

destroyed.

ISRP Rank: B

Comments: 

See previous ISRP review: “The ISRP was unanimous in viewing the acquisition of the 

Arrowleaf property as an important opportunity that should be seized upon by the 

Council and BPA. The Arrowleaf property is clearly desirable property with many 

wildlife and habitat features that approximate pristine condition. The proposors clearly 

describe the importance of the property, its near pristine condition, its position as a link 

between upper and lower habitats (particularly salmonid habitats), and the negative 

ecological consequences of not obtaining the property.” Council should look at the cost 

of this purchase relative to other purchases.
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

13

Attachment 3. 2001 Action Plan Review

Project ID: 23012

Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project

Sponsor: TPL and WDFW

Province: Columbia Cascade

Subbasin: Methow

FY01 Request: $1,250,000

Short Description: The project is an acquisition of the 1020-acre Arrowleaf property on 

the Methow River-- critical habitat for 9 ESA listed species. If not purchased the property 

will be subdivided into 70 lots and much of the upland and riparian habitat will be 

destroyed.

ISRP Recommendation: 

Fundable? Under the high priority solicitation, the Council recommended and BPA 

committed to funding this project at $2.5 million of the $3.75 million requested. They 

are now asking for $1.25 million to fully fund this conservation easement transaction. 

Although the sponsors did not revise the ir proposal to justify it under the Action Plan 

criteria, this project offers long-term benefit to species targeted under the Action Plan 

solicitation. Also, the proposal may meet the scope of activities under this solicitation in 

that it would protect some water rights for instream use. However, it is not clear whether 

these rights will be exercised this year or how significant the additions will be to the 

overall flow of the Methow. It is not clear that additional funding under this solicitation 

will provide immediate benefits.

See previous ISRP review: “The ISRP was unanimous in viewing the acquisition of the 

Arrowleaf property as an important opportunity that should be seized upon by the 

Council and BPA. The Arrowleaf property is clearly desirable property with many 

wildlife and habitat features that approximate pristine condition. The proposers clearly 

describe the importance of the property, its near pristine condition, its position as a link 

between upper and lower habitats (particularly salmonid habitats), and the negative 

ecological consequences of not obtaining the property.” Council should look at the cost 

of this purchase relative to other purchases. 

Per the cover letter from the Trust for Public Lands for the 2001 Action Plan solicitation, 

the ISRP notes that in our review we discussed that the request to BPA was a portion of 

the $17M total cost for the project. The ISRP made a “B-list” recommendation for this 

project in the High Priority solicitation for a variety of reasons. 
ISRP 2002-1 Arrowleaf

14

ATTACHMENT 4. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

NO. DATE RECD. FROM ORG TO

01 11/30/01 11/30/01 Jeff Koenings WDFW Larry Cassidy

02 12/17/01 12/19/01 Michael D. Gage NWPPC Members

03 12/07/01 12/10/01 Paul E. Christen Doug Marker

04 12/11/01 12/11/01 Dick Ewing Larry Cassidy

05 11/21/01 11/27/01 Mel Stone Okanogan 

County Citizens 

Coalition

06 10/19/01 10/24/01 Robert Turner National Marine 

Fisheries Service

Vaugh Jolley, 

Methow Valley 

Irrigation Dist.

07 08/08/01 08/14/01 Robert Turner National Marine 

Fisheries Service

Vaugh Jolley, 

Methow Valley 

Irrigation Dist.

08 03/12/01 03/12/01 Calvin J. Treser Mark Walker

09 03/05/01 03/05/01 Patty Murray United States 

Senate

Larry Cassidy

10 03/12/01 03/14/01 Dueane Calvin Water & 

Irrigation 

Division

Larry Cassidy

11 02/21/01 02/26/01 Richard Penny American Rivers Larry Cassidy

12 02/20/01 02/22/01 Frank J. Urabeck Trout Unlimited Larry Cassidy

13 02/14/01 02/14/01 Daulot Fountain MV Citizens 

Council

NWPPC

14 02/21/01 02/26/01 Travis S. Thornton The Trust for 

Public Land

Larry Cassidy

15 02/20/01 02/22/01 Barbara Gordon

Nicholas Lovejoy

Gordon-Lovejoy 

Foundation

Mark Walker

16 02/14/01 03/13/01 Frank Chopp WA. House of 

Representatives

Larry Cassidy

17 02/12/01 02/15/01 Mel Stone Okanogan 

County Citizens 

Coalition

Mark Walker

18 02/12/01 02/13/01 Mike Petersen The Land 

Council

Mark Walker

19 02/12/01 02/14/01 David A. Bricklin Bricklin & 

Gendler, LLP

Mark Walker

20 02/11/01 02/13/01 Bonnie Lawrence Okanogan 

Resource 

Council

Mark Walker

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2002-1 arrowleaf.doc