The purpose of this project is to monitor habitat status and trends in four rivers in the Snake River Basin following CHaMP protocols. However, coordination with the CHaMP and ISEMP program is incompletely described in this proposal. Objective 5 states that data collected by this project will be turned over to ISEMP. Explanation of what ISEMP will do with these data is not provided. The relationship between CHaMP and ISEMP also is not described. The ISRP has proposed that the CHaMP program conduct a workshop for all collaborators in 2011 to ensure full coordination among all of the programs and participants. Although the ISRP believes that this particular project is not currently justified, the project proponents should consider attending this workshop to aid in the development of any future proposals for habitat monitoring.

Several elements of this proposal need significant improvement. A key component of CHaMP status and trends monitoring is modeling to connect habitat condition to fish population response. Successfully accomplishing this goal requires both habitat and fish data. The proposal suggests that fish monitoring will be done by other projects, but it is unclear who will undertake this effort of how it will be done. A complete description of fish monitoring and how habitat data collected by this project will be correlated with fish response should have been included in the proposal.

The response presented objectives that were more specific than those in the initial proposal, as requested by the ISRP, but these objectives are still rather vague. The proponents also provided a more detailed (but still abbreviated) description of methods and analytical techniques than in the initial proposal. Nonetheless, much remains unclear about the analyses. For example, how will “watershed scale effects of current implementation activities" (Objective 2) be assessed and how will habitat information be used to prioritize the "salmonid habitat protection and rehabilitation strategy" (Objective 4)? The analytical methods and adaptive management framework for this project need to be much more fully developed.

Unlike other proposals included under the CHaMP program, this project has not recently collected habitat data. The proposal indicates that no habitat data have been collected since 2002 and the existing project was terminated in 2004 because the NPT and BPA could not reach agreement on habitat parameters to be measured. The ISRP asked for a history of accomplishments during the past eight years and how this information was used to select restoration projects. This information was not included in the response, indicating that no data have been collected over this time. Testing of the CHaMP program concept will be far more efficient if the initial data sets are obtained from locations where there is a demonstrated capability to collect these types of data.

The implementation of a coordinated, consistent habitat monitoring program in the Columbia Basin is a laudable goal. However, the part that this project will play in achieving that objective was not fully explained in the proposal. The proposal should be expanded to: 1. clearly describe the relationship with the CHaMP process 2. explain why 25 sample sites per watershed is considered sufficient to characterize habitat trends 3. provide an overview of the results obtained from the monitoring effort that has been conducted since 2002 4. describe who will be responsible for data analysis and the analysis methods 5. include an adaptive management strategy 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The purpose of the project is described in the proposal as, “Collaborate in the development and implementation of a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin.” This goal is clearly relevant to restoration efforts in the basin. It also is noteworthy that the largest habitat/survival gaps for Snake River steelhead occur on the Clearwater tributaries proposed for this study. There is a pressing need to fill these data gaps. This fact clearly indicates the potential value of the information that could be generated by this study. However, specific objectives and deliverables are very general and pertain to implementation of a study design that, apparently, has not yet been developed. The objectives simply indicate that a list of habitat parameters will be collected according to sampling protocols developed by ISEMP. The objectives should be more detailed and related specifically to how the habitat monitoring results will be used to modify restoration efforts in the four watersheds where this work will be conducted. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This project will build off a monitoring effort that has been in place for eight years. However, there is little, if any, discussion about the accomplishments of this existing monitoring effort. Nor is any mention made regarding the impact this existing monitoring effort has had on the selection and execution of restoration efforts in the project region. Some discussion of this past monitoring effort should be included in the proposal. The proposal also should include a clear description of the advantages offered by switching to the CHaMP program. The proposal does not contain a fully developed description of an adaptive management program. The information that could be generated by this project would be of great value to restoration efforts in the targeted watersheds, representing an opportunity for the development of an adaptive approach for the application of results to a management decisions. A description of how results of this project will be used to modify the process for prioritizing and implementing future restoration projects in the study watersheds should be incorporated into the proposal. Addressing this deficiency would require a more complete characterization of 1) objectives being addressed by this project, 2) the manner in which the data will be analyzed, and 3) the process by which results will be communicated. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The primary objective of this project, the collection of habitat data for tributaries of the Clearwater River, is consistent with the 2008 BiOp, the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program, MERR, and PNAMP recommendations. However, the relationship between this project and program of which it will be a part (CHaMP) is incompletely described. The proposal provides very little description about the CHaMP program or how the information collected by monitoring in the Lolo Creek, South Fork Clearwater River, Lochsa River, and Imnaha River will be incorporated into this process. The proposal suggests that the success of this project is contingent on funding for the CHaMP program, which has not yet been fully funded or approved at the expanded scale. Is this project viable if the CHaMP proposal is not fully funded? A much more thorough description of the project relationship with the CHaMP program is required to adequately review this proposal. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The GRTS process is generally accepted as a valid method of site selection. Although the process of site selection is appropriate, some description of the rationale for 25 sample sites per watershed should have been provided. Was this number of sites selected based on some analysis of statistical power? The metrics listed for habitat characterization are appropriate and very complete. Some explanation as to why all these variables are necessary should be included in the proposal. Specifics on the methods that will be employed were not described in the proposal but are included in an ISEMP publication. In addition to the 25 sample sites, 6 legacy monitoring sites within the Clearwater River and 3 legacy monitoring sites within Lolo Creek will also be monitored. These 9 sites were included in a monitoring project that began 8 years ago. Will some method be employed to make this older data compatible with the new information collected using the CHaMP protocols? Will this be accomplished by monitoring the legacy sites for several years using both old and new sampling methods? If not, will the old data be discarded? Some description of how these older data will be used and the process by which their compatibility with the new data will be assessed should be incorporated into the proposal. As noted earlier, there is essentially no information provided on who will be responsible for data analysis and interpretation or the manner in which the habitat data will be analyzed. The analysis methodologies are as important as the methods of data collection. Will the data collected at these project sites be delivered to someone in the CHaMP program for analysis? If this is the case and CHaMP is not funded, how will the analyses be done? How will habitat metrics be related to biological responses? A thorough review of the technical adequacy of this proposal cannot be completed without this information.

In addition to coordinating with ISEMP in standardization of data collection and their management of CHaMP data within the STEM database, the project supports RPA 72 through funding staff for participation in PNAMP workgroups and regional level data management workgroups addressing data management tools and standards for data storage and access.

 The project does not appear to have an association with RPA 51.3 as staff participation in fish population monitoring workgroups does not have a direct relationship to the final proposal.

The project does have an association with RPA 56.3 through participation in ongoing collaborative process to develop a regional strategy for limited habitat status and trend monitoring for key ESA fish populations.

 The project does have an association with RPA 71.3 in supporting the standardization and coordination of monitoring efforts through participation in regional coordination forums such as PNAMP. 

 

The project would appear to have an association with RPA 57.5 through providing input from technical staff regarding watershed condition data and biological impacts of tributary habitat restoration actions in the Columbia Basin. 

The project would appear to have an association with RPA 71.3 in addressing standardization of monitoring efforts through collaboration with the CHaMP project and participation in PNAMP workgroups.  

The project would appear to have an association with RPA 71.4 in addressing standardized metrics, data collection and reporting through collaboration with the CHaMP project

 The project does not appear to have an association with RPA 71.6, except as indirectly addressed through sub-actions 71.3 and 71.4. 

 The project would appear to have an association with RPA 72.1 through funding staff for participation in PNAMP workgroups and regional level data management workgroups addressing data management tools and standards for data storage and access.

 

The project does not appear to have an association with RPA 56.1, 56.2 or 71.5.