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

This project proposes to continue an ongoing effort to collect and analyze salmonid population and habitat data on Rock Creek for the ultimate purpose of identifying habitat restoration projects that would be most beneficial to the fish. The Rock Creek watershed appears to be an appropriate location for such an effort. The proposal indicates that this population is a focus of recovery efforts for the Mid-Columbia ESU.

The four objectives for this project are:

(OBJ-1) Understand the current habitat conditions

(OBJ-2) Protect and conserve existing good quality habitat and expand upon these focal areas

(OBJ-3) Identify protection/restoration sites and actions

(OBJ-4) Restore and enhance habitat

The general approach being taken is consistent with the guidance provided by the ISRP for years: identify restoration actions based on a thorough understanding of how the focal species are using the watershed. The technical background on the project activity to date was sufficient to illustrate what has been accomplished. However, key elements of the watershed assessment have yet to be completed (geomorphic assessment and juvenile fish assessment reports due in 2014). It appears that these reports will form the basis of a new EDT analysis that will be used to identify project locations and limiting factors. An evaluation of the technical adequacy of the process that will be used for project identification would require that these reports be included in the proposal. Therefore, Objectives 1 and 2 are justified in the proposal. However, the adequacy of the process that will be used to identify priority restoration sites (Objective 3) cannot be assessed with the information provided in the proposal. As a result, Objective 4 is not appropriate at this time.

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

The history and past accomplishments of this project are described briefly in the proposal. However, it appears that relatively little rigorous analysis of the fish or habitat data that have been collected to date has been completed. The discussion of results is similar in scope to that examined in the previous ISRP review (spring 2012) and is only slightly improved in terms of providing a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The proposal mostly contains a description of the types of data being collected and provides examples of some of these data including number of spawners and index of juvenile density. Additionally, the location of stream reaches that experience significant dewatering should be displayed. Also, it would be useful to know if the presence of non-native fishes in lower Rock Creek has had any effect on the survival of juvenile steelhead as they emigrate from the watershed. It seems that the reports due in 2014 on channel geomorphology and salmonid fishes will include detailed analyses of the data. The ISRP would require these reports and a description of the process to be used to identify priority projects in order to fully evaluate this proposal.

There is no explicit description of an adaptive management process associated with this project. However, there is a clear indication of an intention to use adaptive management principles as a foundation of the restoration process. Data being collected is intended to be used to identify high-priority projects. It appears that EDT will be the tool used to achieve this goal. Development of a more formal adaptive management process for this project could help ensure that the data being collected are used to fullest advantage.

Evaluation of data collected by this project to date was not provided in this proposal. The reports planned for release in 2014 should contain a thorough data analysis and a discussion of the implications for habitat restoration.

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

The proposal provides only a very high-level description of the relationships between this project and other habitat RME and habitat restoration projects in the Columbia Basin. They apparently are using some sampling protocols developed through the CHaMP and PNAMP processes. But the actual relationship between this project and the large habitat RME efforts in the basin, like CHaMP and ISEMP, is not described. It would seem that considerable leverage could be gained by aligning the sampling protocols being used in this study with efforts attempting to achieve similar objectives. The data management system described for this project in the proposal also might benefit by closer association with the large RME programs, which have developed very sophisticated data management systems.

The proposal generically identifies limiting factors for the Rock Creek watershed, but it also indicates that site-specific limiting factors can only be reliably identified once data collection and analysis is complete. This approach is technically sound. Water temperature is identified as a limiting factor in the proposal, and the work has also included pathogen sampling, although results of that sampling are not presented here. Is there any possibility that high temperatures have exacerbated disease or parasite problems in Rock Creek? The proposal does not address any of the key emerging limiting factors such as climate change, invasive species, or future development of the watershed. A careful assessment of how these things may affect restoration actions should be incorporated into the process being developed to identify priority restoration actions.

This project uses PIT tags and two instream PIT tag readers to assess juvenile steelhead movement, smolt production, and adult returns. The proposal clearly explains why PIT tags are the best choice for application in this project. However, it is not clear if an adequate number of fish have been PIT-tagged to get sufficient recoveries to make generalizations about fish movements.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables, work elements, and metrics associated with the collection of fish and habitat data for Rock Creek appear to be appropriate for project objectives. However, there was little description of how these data are being analyzed (other than that EDT is being used); some additional information on this point would have helped assess the technical merit of the analysis methods being used. Presumably, these items will be addressed through the reports planned for completion in 2014. It was stated that genetic analysis of steelhead is being discontinued. No information was provided in the proposal on how the information from this part of the study will be used to help inform habitat restoration priorities.

There is insufficient information provided to determine if the methods that will be used to identify the most effective restoration projects are scientifically sound. The use of EDT to examine these data is a reasonable approach. However, until the reports on system geomorphology and fish populations are completed in 2014, it is not possible to assess whether or not these data will be sufficient to accurately parameterize the EDT process. In addition, it would be wise to use EDT in conjunction with a second analytical approach. Consistent outcomes from the two approaches would add considerable assurance that the most significant projects are being correctly identified.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal was adequately cross-referenced with respect to the MonitoringMethods.org protocols.

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

The elements of this project related to data collection generally meet scientific criteria. However, proposal elements related to the identification and execution of habitat restoration actions are not adequately justified from a scientific standpoint. It is not possible to assess the technical merit of the project identification process until the geomorphology and salmonid population assessments are completed in 2014. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing these reports and the process to be used to identify priority projects. The ISRP should review the reports and the prioritization process as a package rather than individually.

Geomorphology and fish population reports should be reviewed by the ISRP when they become available.

The strategy for incorporating these data into the restoration prioritization process needs to be clearly described.

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

This project proposes to continue an ongoing effort to collect and analyze salmonid population and habitat data on Rock Creek for the ultimate purpose of identifying habitat restoration projects that would be most beneficial to the fish. The Rock Creek watershed appears to be an appropriate location for such an effort. The proposal indicates that this population is a focus of recovery efforts for the Mid-Columbia ESU.

The four objectives for this project are:

(OBJ-1) Understand the current habitat conditions

(OBJ-2) Protect and conserve existing good quality habitat and expand upon these focal areas

(OBJ-3) Identify protection/restoration sites and actions

(OBJ-4) Restore and enhance habitat

The general approach being taken is consistent with the guidance provided by the ISRP for years: identify restoration actions based on a thorough understanding of how the focal species are using the watershed. The technical background on the project activity to date was sufficient to illustrate what has been accomplished. However, key elements of the watershed assessment have yet to be completed (geomorphic assessment and juvenile fish assessment reports due in 2014). It appears that these reports will form the basis of a new EDT analysis that will be used to identify project locations and limiting factors. An evaluation of the technical adequacy of the process that will be used for project identification would require that these reports be included in the proposal. Therefore, Objectives 1 and 2 are justified in the proposal. However, the adequacy of the process that will be used to identify priority restoration sites (Objective 3) cannot be assessed with the information provided in the proposal. As a result, Objective 4 is not appropriate at this time.

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

The history and past accomplishments of this project are described briefly in the proposal. However, it appears that relatively little rigorous analysis of the fish or habitat data that have been collected to date has been completed. The discussion of results is similar in scope to that examined in the previous ISRP review (spring 2012) and is only slightly improved in terms of providing a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The proposal mostly contains a description of the types of data being collected and provides examples of some of these data including number of spawners and index of juvenile density. Additionally, the location of stream reaches that experience significant dewatering should be displayed. Also, it would be useful to know if the presence of non-native fishes in lower Rock Creek has had any effect on the survival of juvenile steelhead as they emigrate from the watershed. It seems that the reports due in 2014 on channel geomorphology and salmonid fishes will include detailed analyses of the data. The ISRP would require these reports and a description of the process to be used to identify priority projects in order to fully evaluate this proposal.

There is no explicit description of an adaptive management process associated with this project. However, there is a clear indication of an intention to use adaptive management principles as a foundation of the restoration process. Data being collected is intended to be used to identify high-priority projects. It appears that EDT will be the tool used to achieve this goal. Development of a more formal adaptive management process for this project could help ensure that the data being collected are used to fullest advantage.

Evaluation of data collected by this project to date was not provided in this proposal. The reports planned for release in 2014 should contain a thorough data analysis and a discussion of the implications for habitat restoration.

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

The proposal provides only a very high-level description of the relationships between this project and other habitat RME and habitat restoration projects in the Columbia Basin. They apparently are using some sampling protocols developed through the CHaMP and PNAMP processes. But the actual relationship between this project and the large habitat RME efforts in the basin, like CHaMP and ISEMP, is not described. It would seem that considerable leverage could be gained by aligning the sampling protocols being used in this study with efforts attempting to achieve similar objectives. The data management system described for this project in the proposal also might benefit by closer association with the large RME programs, which have developed very sophisticated data management systems.

The proposal generically identifies limiting factors for the Rock Creek watershed, but it also indicates that site-specific limiting factors can only be reliably identified once data collection and analysis is complete. This approach is technically sound. Water temperature is identified as a limiting factor in the proposal, and the work has also included pathogen sampling, although results of that sampling are not presented here. Is there any possibility that high temperatures have exacerbated disease or parasite problems in Rock Creek? The proposal does not address any of the key emerging limiting factors such as climate change, invasive species, or future development of the watershed. A careful assessment of how these things may affect restoration actions should be incorporated into the process being developed to identify priority restoration actions.

This project uses PIT tags and two instream PIT tag readers to assess juvenile steelhead movement, smolt production, and adult returns. The proposal clearly explains why PIT tags are the best choice for application in this project. However, it is not clear if an adequate number of fish have been PIT-tagged to get sufficient recoveries to make generalizations about fish movements.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables, work elements, and metrics associated with the collection of fish and habitat data for Rock Creek appear to be appropriate for project objectives. However, there was little description of how these data are being analyzed (other than that EDT is being used); some additional information on this point would have helped assess the technical merit of the analysis methods being used. Presumably, these items will be addressed through the reports planned for completion in 2014. It was stated that genetic analysis of steelhead is being discontinued. No information was provided in the proposal on how the information from this part of the study will be used to help inform habitat restoration priorities.

There is insufficient information provided to determine if the methods that will be used to identify the most effective restoration projects are scientifically sound. The use of EDT to examine these data is a reasonable approach. However, until the reports on system geomorphology and fish populations are completed in 2014, it is not possible to assess whether or not these data will be sufficient to accurately parameterize the EDT process. In addition, it would be wise to use EDT in conjunction with a second analytical approach. Consistent outcomes from the two approaches would add considerable assurance that the most significant projects are being correctly identified.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal was adequately cross-referenced with respect to the MonitoringMethods.org protocols.

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

The elements of this project related to data collection generally meet scientific criteria. However, proposal elements related to the identification and execution of habitat restoration actions are not adequately justified from a scientific standpoint. It is not possible to assess the technical merit of the project identification process until the geomorphology and salmonid population assessments are completed in 2014. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing these reports and the process to be used to identify priority projects. The ISRP should review the reports and the prioritization process as a package rather than individually.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:29:46 PM.

There are not enough details in the project to conduct a scientific evaluation. This project likely needs more time than is available in the response loop to adequately develop this project for a meaningful ISRP review. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a proposal when it is fully developed. As mentioned below, a few parts of this might be supportable if better justified.

A labeled map and a description of land ownership in project areas are both badly needed.

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

The issue/problem statement is not well developed, and as a result, there is no clear overall goal. How the entire project relates to the region as a whole is unclear.

A few Chinook have been noted to spawn in the lower end. Steelhead are the only species of interest (The presentation reported 143 Steelhead redds). Again, the background and goals are described as though the completed work was never done.

The merits of the seven specific objectives are in question as well their status and the need for the work to be done. One objective (#4 to assess juvenile abundance and distribution) appears warranted if clearly defined. The other six are either already completed, at least to an adequate extent, or inappropriate.

Obj. 1 steelhead genetics - see completed report in Annual Report. Several more years of 50 fish samples are “needed.”

Obj. 2 assess habitat conditions and limiting factors - Proponents need to justify and clarify the need for additional data based on what has already analyzed. The discussion in the Annual Report was insufficient.

Obj. 3 assess lamprey use - never justified or explained to reviewers.

Obj. 5 survey fish pathogens - completed, see page 15 in Annual Report. “The Rock Creek fish health report indicates the mainstem Rock Creek fish samples were in good health and no pathogens were detected.”

Obj. 6 kelt movement - not explained or justified.

Obj. 7 identify project sites (probably okay if adequately justified) and also plant trees (also okay if not just feeding beavers).

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

For some reason this is identified as a new project as it indicates there are no past accomplishments. Yet the financial summary indicates $330K has already been spent, much of that Accord funds. Some of the funding went to “install two PIT-tag multiplex units in Rock Creek and subcontracted to USGS. Not all of the funding was spent to the end of the contract because there was limited time. The remainder of the FY2008 budget was carried over to the FY2011 budget. Then in FY2009 the Rock Creek Project started a two-year contract which is planned to end on May 31, 2011. We have a large subcontract with USGS to assist with the population surveys in Rock Creek as well as analyze the PIT-tag data.” This tangled web was confusing to reviewers.

An annual report has been filed for the period Dec 2007 through May 2009. However, for some reason that is quite disconcerting, those results are totally ignored in the current proposal.
So, regardless, there have been lots of data gathered. And there are PIT tag units and a USGS population survey subcontract apparently in place.

The project development, history, and most importantly its current status is in question.

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

There is little information regarding how this project relates to other projects in the region.

The fact that there are substantial numbers of channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleyes, perch and other non-natives is a clear problem, and to the reviewers, puts the value of the entire project in question.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

All of these are inadequately detailed.

There are not enough details in the project to conduct a scientific evaluation. This project likely needs more time than is available in the response loop to adequately develop this project for a meaningful ISRP review. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a proposal when it is fully developed. As mentioned below, a few parts of this might be supportable if better justified. A labeled map and a description of land ownership in project areas are both badly needed. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The issue/problem statement is not well developed, and as a result, there is no clear overall goal. How the entire project relates to the region as a whole is unclear. A few Chinook have been noted to spawn in the lower end. Steelhead are the only species of interest (The presentation reported 143 Steelhead redds). Again, the background and goals are described as though the completed work was never done. The merits of the seven specific objectives are in question as well their status and the need for the work to be done. One objective (#4 to assess juvenile abundance and distribution) appears warranted if clearly defined. The other six are either already completed, at least to an adequate extent, or inappropriate. Obj. 1 steelhead genetics - see completed report in Annual Report. Several more years of 50 fish samples are “needed.” Obj. 2 assess habitat conditions and limiting factors - Proponents need to justify and clarify the need for additional data based on what has already analyzed. The discussion in the Annual Report was insufficient. Obj. 3 assess lamprey use - never justified or explained to reviewers. Obj. 5 survey fish pathogens - completed, see page 15 in Annual Report. “The Rock Creek fish health report indicates the mainstem Rock Creek fish samples were in good health and no pathogens were detected.” Obj. 6 kelt movement - not explained or justified. Obj. 7 identify project sites (probably okay if adequately justified) and also plant trees (also okay if not just feeding beavers). 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management For some reason this is identified as a new project as it indicates there are no past accomplishments. Yet the financial summary indicates $330K has already been spent, much of that Accord funds. Some of the funding went to “install two PIT-tag multiplex units in Rock Creek and subcontracted to USGS. Not all of the funding was spent to the end of the contract because there was limited time. The remainder of the FY2008 budget was carried over to the FY2011 budget. Then in FY2009 the Rock Creek Project started a two-year contract which is planned to end on May 31, 2011. We have a large subcontract with USGS to assist with the population surveys in Rock Creek as well as analyze the PIT-tag data.” This tangled web was confusing to reviewers. An annual report has been filed for the period Dec 2007 through May 2009. However, for some reason that is quite disconcerting, those results are totally ignored in the current proposal. So, regardless, there have been lots of data gathered. And there are PIT tag units and a USGS population survey subcontract apparently in place. The project development, history, and most importantly its current status is in question. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) There is little information regarding how this project relates to other projects in the region. The fact that there are substantial numbers of channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleyes, perch and other non-natives is a clear problem, and to the reviewers, puts the value of the entire project in question. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods All of these are inadequately detailed.

The proposal has many objectives and it is expected that this ambitious project should generate much information that would be useful to others in the region. However, there is a need to prioritize among the objectives and work in a logical sequence that allows planning and funding to proceed in stages. The ISRP recommends that objectives that relate to obtaining access, assessing fish population abundance and productivity, and assessing habitat be supported. Specifically work elements presented below should be conducted if the sponsors can justify how this information will be used. The ISRP suggests using flow charts or similar methods to identify how contingencies will be addressed based on the baseline data.

Fundable work elements:
1.1.1 Collect field data and develop RM&E methods and designs. Derive estimates of salmonid population abundance in select reaches of Rock Creek. (USGS, YN)
1.1.2 Collect field data. Determine fish species composition and distribution within the watershed. (USGS, YN)
1.1.7 Determine adult counts (YN)
1.1.8 Monitor juvenile and resident fish. Conduct redd counts and spawner surveys. (YN)
2.1.1 Conduct stream habitat monitoring. (YN)
2.1.2 Sample spawning gravel/sediment.
2.1.3 Monitor stream temperature and water quality.
2.1.3 (second) Monitor stream flow.

Justification for sample sizes, whether they are sites, reaches, or fish, should be specified. Monitoring and evaluation should be described in more detail to ensure that success of the project can be effectively evaluated. Strategies for sharing information were clearly identified in the response.

Not-fundable elements: The PIT tagging work is not justified in the response. There seem to be no special circumstances or hypotheses identified here that could only be answered or addressed by PIT tag results.