We thank the proponents for submitting a revised proposal as well as a point-by-point response addressing all of the topics identified in our preliminary comments. Our final comments based on the response are provided after each topic:

1. Monitoring and evaluation objectives. The proponents provided an additional paragraph to address the ISRP’s request for SMART objectives. This new paragraph lists three monitoring activities that would be used to assess project performance: 1) Visual assessment of pre-restoration habitat conditions, 2) Implementation monitoring, and 3) Effectiveness monitoring using site evaluation methods scheduled with input from BPA. These statements are too vague to meet our criteria for SMART objectives because they lack specific measurable or timeline elements. Thus, the proponent’s response falls short of fully satisfying our request. However, the added paragraph and description are a good start when combined with the added text in response to our second request for information on the project’s monitoring and evaluation. The ISRP suggests that it would be valuable and relatively easy for the proponents to use their added text to develop a concise list of SMART objectives and a description of how they will be assessed. These fully specified SMART objectives and description of how they will be assessed should be provided in the next annual report and in future proposals. These additions would clarify and adequately document the objectives of the project.

2. Monitoring and evaluation methods. The proponents added substantial new text about the monitoring methods; however, additional clarity is needed for key aspects of the monitoring plans. They state that their monitoring and evaluation will focus on measuring implementation without any additional detail.

Although effectiveness monitoring is acknowledged and mentioned, the revised proposal simply states that the objectives will be identified for specific project actions on whether the desired resource response was achieved or not. No further details are provided.

The added text and detail, with an additional appendix and video, is much more complete for implementation monitoring. Depending on the project’s actions, monitoring activities include assessment of erosion control, plant survivability in riparian zones with exclusion of livestock, visual assessment of in-stream conditions, and integrity of fish passage structures. While extensive details are not described, given the diversity of project actions, the implementation monitoring was sufficiently documented.

3. M&E matrix – support. The proponents responded they will continue to work closely with partners in the watersheds and that documentation and coordination of monitoring efforts is essential. They strive to ensure project monitoring results are incorporated in the evaluation of recovery actions at multiple geographic scales. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue to contribute to these synthesis efforts. The ISRP addresses the issue more broadly in this report’s programmatic comment on habitat restoration M&E.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

This is a long running project focused on restoration of salmon, steelhead, and bull trout habitat in Asotin County, Lower Grande Ronde River tributaries, and Lower Snake River tributaries. This proposal successfully combines two past projects. The proposed project is important as habitat conditions are severely degraded and considered a key threat to the persistence of steelhead and bull trout. The project is soundly supported by subbasin plans and NOAA's Recovery Plan. The project has extensive partners and collaborators and is a key component of the overall recovery strategy for steelhead and bull trout in Southeast Washington.

The project has an extensive set of accomplishments. The past focus has been mostly on upland management improvements in crop and livestock production. The project's success in these endeavors is impressive as illustrated by the fact that 95% of the land designated as cropland in Asotin County now uses minimum tillage and direct seed or has been converted to perennial grass.

The project has also made major strides forward in application of a sound science-based approach for planning, implementing, and evaluating restoration projects. Past efforts focused on opportunistic projects mostly in the uplands with little or no response evaluation. Completing geomorphic assessments and conceptual restoration plans has provided the project with much needed information on impaired processes and limiting factors. The adoption of an adaptive management approach for planning, implementing, evaluating, and adapting is an important step for the project. In addition, the transition from upslope restoration to instream strategies is consistent with past ISRP recommendations. The addition of implementation and effectiveness monitoring and evaluation (although lacking in detail) has enhanced the scientific foundation for the project and the likelihood of success.

We appreciate the comprehensive goals and detailed objectives that were provided. The methods for most objectives were well described and appropriate. The proponents are requested to address the following items in a revised proposal and include a brief point-by-point response to the ISRP referencing where and summarizing how the issues were addressed in the revised proposal:

1. Monitoring and evaluation objectives: Please add specific SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) appropriate for the monitoring and evaluation elements of the project. The evaluation component is very important to the project's ability to implement an effective adaptive management approach and document achievements. It is essential that the project develop clear monitoring and evaluation objectives to guide the assessment of project performance.

2. Monitoring and evaluation methods: Please provide a detailed description of the methods that will be used for the pre- and post-site restoration response monitoring.

3. 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 Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project (201007700) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Lower Snake, Tucannon, and Asotin geographic area. 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

This proposal integrates two separate habitat restoration projects in Asotin County and the lower Grande Ronde River. The combined project is addressing long-term habitat degradation impacts throughout the project area. Current habitat conditions have a significant negative impact on the survival and persistence of steelhead, Chinook salmon, and bull trout, all of which are listed as threatened under the ESA. Improving spawning and rearing habitat is an essential component of the recovery efforts with highlighted importance to summer steelhead. The project goals, to improve spawning and rearing habitat for salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and lamprey by restoring naturally functioning conditions and processes, are supported by subbasin and recovery plans. The project is consistent with the Council's Fish and Wildlife program principals.

The proposal provides an extensive list of project objectives that are aligned with and support goal achievement. The objectives are clearly stated and are specific with quantitative targets and specified timelines, key elements of SMART objectives.

The objectives have been revised from past proposals in an effort to address previous ISRP concerns that the project lacked a strategic plan and approach that incorporated current conditions, understanding of key habitat limiting factors, and a process to establish priority restoration locations and actions. The project contracted and completed geomorphic assessments and conceptual restoration plans for Asotin County and Lower Grande Ronde River tributaries. These plans provided much needed information for planning, prioritizing, implementing, and evaluating restoration efforts. The objectives of the proposal were formulated with consideration of new information and guidance provided by the plans. The project focus shifted from mostly upslope project work addressing agriculture and livestock management impacts to instream habitat improvement. Specific objectives with quantitative outcomes are provided for each of the four restoration strategies including: protect and maintain natural processes, remove barriers and reconnect habitats, restore long-term processes, and restore short-term processes.

Although the proposal identifies evaluation as critical to project success, there are no clear objectives provided for monitoring and evaluations. Progress to date is a list of restoration activities that have been conducted (e.g., number of trees and shrubs planted). Project performance going beyond construction-based measures is a critical element identified in the proposal and was also highlighted in previous ISRP project reviews as essential for providing information for learning, adaptive management, and improving future restoration actions.

Q2: Methods

The project is undergoing a major shift in emphasis and has adopted an adaptive management approach to guide the identification, development, and implementation of projects. Past work focused mostly on upslope projects that occur in cases where landowners were cooperative, and there was little in-stream focus. The new emphasis targets actions to address key limiting factors and impaired natural processes in high priority locations. The primary focus will be on improving instream and floodplain conditions.

The proposal describes an excellent eight-step process, which guides restoration actions from identification of restoration areas through implementation and effectiveness monitoring. There are specific considerations detailed at each step for erosion control projects, riparian and livestock projects, and instream projects. These new planning, implementation, and evaluation steps are much improved from previous proposals and methods.

Although we strongly support the addition of the evaluation step in the overall process, the proposal does not describe the information that will be collected and the analytical approach to evaluate and compare pre- and post- treatment data. In addition, no details are provided describing the specific data types that will be updated for future geomorphic assessment and limiting factors analyses. The project adjustment process that is summarized says that the projects will be adjusted based on data collected, and details about how such information will be obtained and analyzed (compliance, implementation, effectiveness) for the important evaluation step is needed.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Past ISRP reviews have highlighted the need for the project to develop adequate implementation and effectiveness monitoring and evaluation as well as a science-based adaptive management framework. The proposal shows significant progress in addressing these shortcomings.

The first and critical step taken was contracting and completing a geomorphic assessment and conceptual restoration plans for Asotin County and the Lower Grande Ronde River. These plans provided valuable current conditions and geomorphic process assessments, updated limiting factors, and identified restoration priorities. The project has adopted a new guiding adaptive management framework with sequenced steps for planning, implementing, evaluating, learning, and adjusting.

Of specific importance are the details for the evaluation and the learning and adapting steps, steps that were not taken in the past. The proposal states "Implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be key to evaluate the benefits and success of projects." The evaluation step involves pre- and post- project evaluation as well as future updates to the geomorphic assessment and limiting factors analyses. A detailed description of the methods that will be used for the pre- and post-site restoration response monitoring is needed. Information should include the metrics, spatial and temporal scales, sampling techniques, statistical analytical techniques, and evaluation criteria. Sources of information include the implementation monitoring done by the project, along with leveraging other information and linking to M&E monitoring done by others.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The project has a long history of success. The original focus was ridge-top to ridge-top with actions focused mainly on impacts from crop and livestock management. The project's success in facilitating upland management improvements is quite impressive as illustrated by the fact that 95% of the land designated as cropland in Asotin County now uses minimum tillage and direct seeding or has been transferred to perennial grass cover. The partnership and utilization of various conservation programs to facilitate this conservation transition has been essential.

In addition to the upslope restoration, a large number of critical passage and screening projects have been completed. The project is also complimented for pursuing completion of the geomorphic assessments and conceptual restoration plans. We view the project’s transition to a formal science based adaptive management approach for planning, implementing, and evaluating projects and the shift in emphasis to restoring natural processes as important and major steps forward.

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

This is a long-term, whole watershed "ridgetop to ridgetop" restoration project that has employed use of integrated restoration treatments (upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments). The Asotin County Conservation District manages the project and works with federal, state, and local agencies and landowners to identify and prioritize habitat restoration activities. It is an important regional program and facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. There has been a substantial amount of coordination and the completion of a wide array of important restoration work. It is stated that there have been large advances in habitat quantity and quality realized since beginning of work in the 1980s. Unfortunately there is no summary describing these changes, where they have occurred and what treatments, or combination of treatments appear to have been responsible for them.

The project complements the Asotin Subbasin Plan, Snake River Regional Recovery Plan, WRIA 35 Watershed Plan, and the Asotin Creek Model Watershed effort. A stated in the proposal, the past approach has been site-scale and opportunistic and this proposal will employ the "Atlas Process" to develop a more strategic approach for restoration. As described, this process will synthesize data and GIS layers and use the TAC to identify priority locations (BSRs) and treatments. There are a number of issues that need to be considered: previous ISRP comments on geomorphic analysis and monitoring do not appear to have been fully addressed; the process does not appear to provide sufficient focus on past monitoring and lessons learned over the last 15+ years of implementation; as a whole watershed restoration project including a substantial upland component, it seems that the make-up of the TAC should be interdisciplinary and not limited to biologists; the description of how priorities will be set is vague and the role of the Stakeholder TAC (local experts) seems limited to only making recommendations on project feasibility.

Looking at various reports and documents, via hotlinks in the proposal, it appears that there is a good deal of relevant information that was not included in the main body of the current proposal. One example is a wide range of public outreach and education activities. These have been ongoing for several years and likely have contributed to good landowner understanding and buy in to the restoration efforts and a higher level of understanding by residents, especially children and students, on the importance of healthy watersheds to fish and to humans. There are other examples including additional monitoring and a variety of lessons learned that were not presented or specifically referenced in the proposal. A video called “Ridgetop to Ridgetop” has been developed which is a very high quality product. The video should be very useful in attracting interest and support from landowners and the general public. This support is essential because habitat restoration often requires support of private landowners. It would be useful to get this video on the NPPC website. The video and presentation to the ISRP provide confidence that the program has made good progress, especially in regard to gaining support of private landowners.

Four general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics, that can be monitored, and a stated time frame for the expected outcomes. In other words, based on past experience, how much can be accomplished during the next project period? The objectives should also be linked to the four limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives.

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

It appears that there have been substantial accomplishments in this watershed and that they have addressed both valley bottom and upslope issues. There is very little discussion that quantitatively summarizes the extent and results of past restoration treatments. Similarly, there was very limited discussion regarding the many lessons that have likely been learned over the long history of restoration work. A positive aspect of the proposal is the recognition that a more strategic approach is needed for more effective restoration results. Unfortunately, the current approach appears limited to the instream and floodplain components of the project and does not consider upslope elements.

Ideally, the proposal should have stated its initial quantitative objectives for each of its previous actions, such as miles of stream fenced and numbers of trees planted, and then describe what was accomplished and the associated results, for example reduced water temperature or healthier riparian vegetation. Information about accomplishments was provided in linked implementation reports, but a summary of this key information should have been in the proposal so that reviewers and the Council can readily see what has been accomplished. In the linked reports, it was not clear whether the reported activities achieved the initial objectives, in part because quantitative objectives probably were not developed for the initial projects. Proposals such as this should estimate what they hope to accomplish and then evaluate what was accomplished. This is not monitoring project effectiveness, rather it is documenting accomplishments, which is a task that should be easy to do. Presentation of this information would facilitate a roll-up of habitat accomplishments across all watersheds in the Columbia basin.

The proposal attempted to address comments from the previous ISRP review. The program consulted with a BPA geomorphologist, but it is not clear to what extent the prioritization process will account for geomorphic processes, as suggested by the ISRP. The ISRP also asked for monitoring and assessment, but the sponsors have not addressed this issue other than to respond that the project is a habitat project, not RM&E. Some fish and habitat monitoring is being conducted by other entities such as WDFW and the State of Washington’s IMW. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not.

Evaluation of Results

There appears to have been a good deal of productive work, coordination, and the completion of a wide array of activities over the life of this project. Unfortunately, there is a limited discussion of actual results other than the statement "to date, large advances in habitat quantity and quality have been realized." A specific example of where a description of results has not been provided is the channel, re-meander project that was completed in 2005 where nearly a mile of stream was treated on lower George Creek. The project was completed more than 7 years ago, and yet there is little discussion of the results of this very intensive, restoration treatment. Additional examples include reductions in sediment input from the use of no-till practices, revegetation of riparian areas and fencing and planting. There have clearly been important results from these treatments, but no quantitative measures or estimates are provided.

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

There is a cursory discussion of emerging limiting factors that only addresses non-native plant species. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of climate change and possible effects on stream temperature, stream flow, or potential changes in riparian vegetation. Perhaps a key limiting factor, though not emerging, is private property ownership that might prevent priority actions. The proposal highlights cooperation with landowners, but it did not identify the number of priority actions that may be constrained by unwilling landowners. How will this compromise or adversely impact adjacent habitat restoration activities?Nevertheless, the ISRP was impressed with the informative presentation and video that documented significant progress in gaining support by private landowner to protect and restore habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The proposal generally describes the type of actions that will be implemented as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that completed actions can be compared with what was proposed. For example, how many acres, or stream miles, of riparian vegetation is proposed to be planted during the project period? Each deliverable should have a quantitative objective so that progress against the objectives can be documented. Plus, it would be good to know how much might be accomplished with the proposed budget. This type of information is needed for habitat restoration efforts throughout the Columbia basin so that the Council and planners can readily see what is being proposed and what is being accomplished. No details are provided on when this work will be accomplished or evaluated.

Methods or rationales to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective(s). For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Overall, this proposal is weak regarding comprehensive monitoring for a long-term, whole watershed restoration project. It is important that a coherent monitoring plan be developed for the watershed restoration program and is one that integrates the range of activities by all players. The monitoring plan should be strategic and build on experience gained in past efforts. It should also incorporate ongoing efforts such as those for the IMW being done by the State of Washington. Monitoring should include a base level of implementation and compliance monitoring for all SWCD projects.

There is, and has been, a wide variety of monitoring activities over the long life of the project. Results of the evaluation of these efforts are not provided or discussed. A summary of past monitoring activities and findings is overdue for this project.

As stated above, this is an IMW for the State of Washington, and there is monitoring for fish response to restoration ongoing. There is no discussion of results or discussion as to any linkage with other monitoring. Also, there is no mention of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM or how this will be incorporated into the current plans for monitoring. These efforts may serve the needs for effectiveness monitoring if they are integrated with the ongoing habitat restoration effort.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The ISRP was impressed by the sponsor’s presentation and the video that documented the program’s success in gaining support by private landowners for habitat restoration activities. Communication with private landowners and gaining their support is a key achievement of this project. The ISRP is encouraged that this effort will lead to other willing participants in habitat restoration.

The ISRP's qualifications should be addressed in contracting, and the ISRP would like to see a progress report in 2014. Qualifications include:

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

This is a long-term, whole watershed "ridgetop to ridgetop" restoration project that has employed use of integrated restoration treatments (upslope, floodplain/riparian, and instream treatments). The Asotin County Conservation District manages the project and works with federal, state, and local agencies and landowners to identify and prioritize habitat restoration activities. It is an important regional program and facilitates collaboration between private landowners and agencies and enhances cost-sharing in an effort to improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. There has been a substantial amount of coordination and the completion of a wide array of important restoration work. It is stated that there have been large advances in habitat quantity and quality realized since beginning of work in the 1980s. Unfortunately there is no summary describing these changes, where they have occurred and what treatments, or combination of treatments appear to have been responsible for them.

The project complements the Asotin Subbasin Plan, Snake River Regional Recovery Plan, WRIA 35 Watershed Plan, and the Asotin Creek Model Watershed effort. A stated in the proposal, the past approach has been site-scale and opportunistic and this proposal will employ the "Atlas Process" to develop a more strategic approach for restoration. As described, this process will synthesize data and GIS layers and use the TAC to identify priority locations (BSRs) and treatments. There are a number of issues that need to be considered: previous ISRP comments on geomorphic analysis and monitoring do not appear to have been fully addressed; the process does not appear to provide sufficient focus on past monitoring and lessons learned over the last 15+ years of implementation; as a whole watershed restoration project including a substantial upland component, it seems that the make-up of the TAC should be interdisciplinary and not limited to biologists; the description of how priorities will be set is vague and the role of the Stakeholder TAC (local experts) seems limited to only making recommendations on project feasibility.

Looking at various reports and documents, via hotlinks in the proposal, it appears that there is a good deal of relevant information that was not included in the main body of the current proposal. One example is a wide range of public outreach and education activities. These have been ongoing for several years and likely have contributed to good landowner understanding and buy in to the restoration efforts and a higher level of understanding by residents, especially children and students, on the importance of healthy watersheds to fish and to humans. There are other examples including additional monitoring and a variety of lessons learned that were not presented or specifically referenced in the proposal. A video called “Ridgetop to Ridgetop” has been developed which is a very high quality product. The video should be very useful in attracting interest and support from landowners and the general public. This support is essential because habitat restoration often requires support of private landowners. It would be useful to get this video on the NPPC website. The video and presentation to the ISRP provide confidence that the program has made good progress, especially in regard to gaining support of private landowners.

Four general objectives were briefly identified. These objectives should include quantitative metrics, that can be monitored, and a stated time frame for the expected outcomes. In other words, based on past experience, how much can be accomplished during the next project period? The objectives should also be linked to the four limiting factors that were identified in the proposal. LWD and bed scour were not directly addressed by the objectives.

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

It appears that there have been substantial accomplishments in this watershed and that they have addressed both valley bottom and upslope issues. There is very little discussion that quantitatively summarizes the extent and results of past restoration treatments. Similarly, there was very limited discussion regarding the many lessons that have likely been learned over the long history of restoration work. A positive aspect of the proposal is the recognition that a more strategic approach is needed for more effective restoration results. Unfortunately, the current approach appears limited to the instream and floodplain components of the project and does not consider upslope elements.

Ideally, the proposal should have stated its initial quantitative objectives for each of its previous actions, such as miles of stream fenced and numbers of trees planted, and then describe what was accomplished and the associated results, for example reduced water temperature or healthier riparian vegetation. Information about accomplishments was provided in linked implementation reports, but a summary of this key information should have been in the proposal so that reviewers and the Council can readily see what has been accomplished. In the linked reports, it was not clear whether the reported activities achieved the initial objectives, in part because quantitative objectives probably were not developed for the initial projects. Proposals such as this should estimate what they hope to accomplish and then evaluate what was accomplished. This is not monitoring project effectiveness, rather it is documenting accomplishments, which is a task that should be easy to do. Presentation of this information would facilitate a roll-up of habitat accomplishments across all watersheds in the Columbia basin.

The proposal attempted to address comments from the previous ISRP review. The program consulted with a BPA geomorphologist, but it is not clear to what extent the prioritization process will account for geomorphic processes, as suggested by the ISRP. The ISRP also asked for monitoring and assessment, but the sponsors have not addressed this issue other than to respond that the project is a habitat project, not RM&E. Some fish and habitat monitoring is being conducted by other entities such as WDFW and the State of Washington’s IMW. It appears that the annual implementation report contains much of this information even though the proposal does not.

Evaluation of Results

There appears to have been a good deal of productive work, coordination, and the completion of a wide array of activities over the life of this project. Unfortunately, there is a limited discussion of actual results other than the statement "to date, large advances in habitat quantity and quality have been realized." A specific example of where a description of results has not been provided is the channel, re-meander project that was completed in 2005 where nearly a mile of stream was treated on lower George Creek. The project was completed more than 7 years ago, and yet there is little discussion of the results of this very intensive, restoration treatment. Additional examples include reductions in sediment input from the use of no-till practices, revegetation of riparian areas and fencing and planting. There have clearly been important results from these treatments, but no quantitative measures or estimates are provided.

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

There is a cursory discussion of emerging limiting factors that only addresses non-native plant species. Surprisingly, there is no discussion of climate change and possible effects on stream temperature, stream flow, or potential changes in riparian vegetation. Perhaps a key limiting factor, though not emerging, is private property ownership that might prevent priority actions. The proposal highlights cooperation with landowners, but it did not identify the number of priority actions that may be constrained by unwilling landowners. How will this compromise or adversely impact adjacent habitat restoration activities?Nevertheless, the ISRP was impressed with the informative presentation and video that documented significant progress in gaining support by private landowner to protect and restore habitat.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The proposal generally describes the type of actions that will be implemented as deliverables. The proposal should quantify these deliverables so that completed actions can be compared with what was proposed. For example, how many acres, or stream miles, of riparian vegetation is proposed to be planted during the project period? Each deliverable should have a quantitative objective so that progress against the objectives can be documented. Plus, it would be good to know how much might be accomplished with the proposed budget. This type of information is needed for habitat restoration efforts throughout the Columbia basin so that the Council and planners can readily see what is being proposed and what is being accomplished. No details are provided on when this work will be accomplished or evaluated.

Methods or rationales to achieve objectives were not fully described. It is not clear how some deliverables will achieve the stated objective(s). For example, how will removal of noxious weeds reduce embeddedness in the stream channel?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Overall, this proposal is weak regarding comprehensive monitoring for a long-term, whole watershed restoration project. It is important that a coherent monitoring plan be developed for the watershed restoration program and is one that integrates the range of activities by all players. The monitoring plan should be strategic and build on experience gained in past efforts. It should also incorporate ongoing efforts such as those for the IMW being done by the State of Washington. Monitoring should include a base level of implementation and compliance monitoring for all SWCD projects.

There is, and has been, a wide variety of monitoring activities over the long life of the project. Results of the evaluation of these efforts are not provided or discussed. A summary of past monitoring activities and findings is overdue for this project.

As stated above, this is an IMW for the State of Washington, and there is monitoring for fish response to restoration ongoing. There is no discussion of results or discussion as to any linkage with other monitoring. Also, there is no mention of ISEMP/CHAMP or AEM or how this will be incorporated into the current plans for monitoring. These efforts may serve the needs for effectiveness monitoring if they are integrated with the ongoing habitat restoration effort.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The ISRP was impressed by the sponsor’s presentation and the video that documented the program’s success in gaining support by private landowners for habitat restoration activities. Communication with private landowners and gaining their support is a key achievement of this project. The ISRP is encouraged that this effort will lead to other willing participants in habitat restoration.

The ISRP's qualifications should be addressed in contracting, and the ISRP would like to see a progress report in 2014. Qualifications include: