The sponsors were responsive to ISRP review comments and have provided reasonable and clear explanations and adjustments to their plans that incorporate evaluations.

The ISRP is pleased that the sponsors decided to carry out habitat effectiveness monitoring as a part of their project. Although the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component will reduce the number of restoration projects that the sponsors may implement, we feel that this effort will be worthwhile for determining whether the habitat enhancement actions have succeeded in improving habitat conditions.

It is unfortunate that limited funding does not directly allow status and trends monitoring as well.Although the sponsors did not provide much detail about the design of the monitoring plan and metrics, which is understandable given the time frame for preparation of the response, the thoughtful and systematic way the habitat improvement project was designed gives the ISRP every reason to believe the sponsors will develop a scientifically valid design for effectiveness monitoring. The response did provide adequate information on the habitat M&E plan for representative sites.

The plan provides evidence of coordination with the Tribal fish M&E program, and details were given of the evaluation that the monitoring project provides. The sponsors will work closely with the Colville Tribe's RM&E efforts to assess effectiveness of habitat enhancement actions, coordinating with Project 200810900 (Resident Fish Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation [RM&E]). This project will undertake status and trends monitoring of juvenile and adult rainbow trout. Nonetheless, the sponsors expressed some uncertainty about whether information obtained from the fish monitoring project can be used in conjunction with habitat monitoring information to determine whether habitat enhancement is benefiting fish, an important consideration since the primary purpose of the habitat work is to improve fish populations. Both are very fine projects, but at this point there seems to be little functional relationship between them. The ISRP encourages the sponsors of both projects to work together to determine how fish and habitat sampling can be coordinated to address the critical question of whether habitat enhancement is benefiting focal species. Both projects also need to focus on the unraveling of resident trout life history and recruitment mechanisms, as well as life-history-based limits to production, to assure (i.e., experimentally test) that these limits will be adequately addressed with rehabilitations. See the programmatic comments on life history research needs.

The response requested is that the sponsors develop a habitat M&E plan for representative sites. The habitat and passage improvement plan should coordinate closely with the Tribal fish M&E program. A clearer explanation of the details of the evaluation provided via the monitoring project (200810900) is required.

Assessment and rehabilitation components should proceed with some improvements identified here. There is a need to review the life history of resident rainbow trout and assess the limiting life stage by estimating abundance and survival through each stage, then determining which factors are responsible for this limitation. The rehabilitation effort should then focus on these limiting factors, and evaluate the treatment effectiveness. Linkage to species and site-specific life histories, habitat use, and migration patterns is needed to relate these to limiting life stages and limiting causes through assessment. For example, monitoring of resident fish via snorkel or trapping in select treatment and control sites should be possible.

Application of EDT to resident streams will be a challenge, but engaging professional assistance will be useful in continuing this assessment process. Results may be applicable to other resident fish streams.

See the ISRP’S programmatic comments on fish stocking.

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

The purpose of the proposed work is to protect and enhance stream habitat to benefit redband rainbow trout on the Colville Confederated Tribes reservation. These items were adequately addressed in the proposal and consisted largely of a process of inventory and assessment towards rehabilitation works in resident fish habitats within tributaries to Lake Roosevelt. Evidence of a science-based approach was clear from the references listed, and a procedure for establishment of priorities was defined. The sponsors will follow an approach based on the primary scientific literature on watershed and stream habitat restoration. Their general approach is first to conduct a systematic habitat inventory and assessment and then, based on the findings of the inventory and modeling, they will prioritize sites for enhancement work. The rehabilitation options were, nonetheless, a list of tools, some of which will require detailed assessment, development, and experimentation, such as planning and monitoring, while others, such as nutrient addition and fencing will not. A guiding document was also referenced, and there was good indication of underlying ecological concepts and processes towards a sequenced plan for rehabilitation works.

The sponsors provide a logical, systematic, step-by-step approach for conducting inventory, assessment, and prioritization. The ISRP is pleased to see such a thoughtful approach. However, effectiveness and status and trend monitoring should be discussed in more detail. Justification for relying on results from other projects was inadequate. There is a need to more completely define an M&E plan. Linkage to species and site-specific life histories, habitat use, migration patterns and similar is standard procedure, and the sponsors need to link these to limiting life stages, limiting causes, and more thorough assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, and experimental evaluation and truly adaptive management.

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

This habitat project has been ongoing for over twenty years, so it may seem odd that habitat inventory, assessment, and prioritization had not been done. In fact it has, but the sponsors assert that previous work was done in a “haphazard” manner and they discuss its many difficulties. The current Project Manager began working for the Tribe in 2011. The ISRP, in our review of the 2007-09 proposal, seems to concur with the sponsors: “Reviewers continue to maintain a position (as detailed in ISRP preliminary comments) that past results are below a standard of adequacy in terms of quality and quantity of efforts to benefit fish when compared with similar projects throughout the basin.” The sponsors assert that, because of these difficulties, habitat inventory, assessment, and prioritization essentially need to be done over, as though it were a new project. The ISRP agrees.

The previous assessments and rehabilitations, as well as status and trend monitoring since 1990 were failures. Perhaps introduced coastal rainbow trout confounded previous analyses, but it was unclear if these introductions will continue into the future. Salmon carcass or carcass analog additions of the past were inadequately evaluated for fish response, and showed no significant difference in invertebrate response. The record of past accomplishments seems relatively good, but a poor record of evaluation is evident, thus few useful lessons were learned. Poor statistical power was present in several of the post-treatment evaluations. This lack of learning from previous efforts emphasizes the need for an effectiveness evaluation in such projects. Previous efforts were summarized in tables, and some results analyzed, which indicated no statistically significant differences. The suggestion is that new staff and management will correct previous inadequacies and follow a better science-based approach, as described. The content of the proposal suggests this will be the case, through an improved focus on habitat protection and rehabilitation. However, there were inadequacies in the section on status and trends monitoring and there is a lack of a solid RM&E plan. Adaptive management will not be possible without these evaluations. The sponsors currently do not plan to monitor a response in fish habitat or populations within this project, but such monitoring is necessary.

There is need to add N and P to the list of water quality monitoring parameters, as well as monitoring for toxics and contaminants.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

See comments above. This is a renewed effort.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The sponsors’ discussion of emerging factors is exceedingly brief and sheds no light on how factors such as climate change will affect their watersheds and streams, and how their work will help lessen these effects. Genetic introgression with non-native coastal rainbow is mentioned as a problem, but little is said about how the work will help resolve the introgression problem.

The sponsor’s comments on RM&E are somewhat perplexing. They will do no status and trends or effectiveness monitoring but will instead “rely on other M&E efforts” like CHaMP and ISEMP. It would have been helpful if the sponsors explained exactly how the results of these other M&E efforts will be used in lieu of their own M&E and why this is justified. In other words, what does “rely on” mean? At this point it is uncertain whether results from ISEMP and CHaMP will be applicable to this project and when they will be available. The sponsors should ensure that monitoring and evaluation occurs on at least on some representative sites.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Deliverables provide reasonable steps toward accomplishing the objective of habitat inventory, assessment, and prioritization of projects. Methods are derived from standard protocols, for example CHaMP and ODFW protocols, and appear sound, but see the comments above regarding M&E.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/13/2012 12:28:08 PM.

The response and revised proposal gave a more readable and detailed account of project results and anticipated activities. Reviewers continue to maintain a position (as detailed in ISRP preliminary comments) that past results are below a standard of adequacy in terms of quality and quantity of efforts to benefit fish when compared with similar projects throughout the basin. Substantial progress is needed during the 07-09 funding cycle. The addition of a subcontract for statistical advising is positive, but only if the (unidentified) subcontractor has appropriate qualifications and practical experience in problem solving. Input from a fluvial geomorphologist would significantly aid project design and implementation.

Reviewers share with project staff an appreciation of the challenges involved in assessing the abundance of adfluvial salmonids. It is important that a set of standardized metrics (for example, trapping during some specified portion of the hydrograph excluding peak flows, coupled with electrofishing or snorkeling at summer base flow) be developed that, taken together, satisfactorily assess changes in fish numbers from year to year. Those metrics can be further compared with fish data from EMAP trend monitoring from the set of reference stream reaches, and with hydrograph and temperature "real time" monitoring to help put physical conditions for that year in perspective, relative to habitat and fish population changes.

Reviewers also share with project staff the awareness that environmental conditions in interior streams are changing, with the heightened peaks in spring flow followed by drought seen in project streams likely continuing. This makes sampling more difficult and puts additional pressure on restoration activities because marginal-quality habitat actions that might have been somewhat beneficial to fish two decades ago now are useless.