The proponents’ response to the ISRP’s original review of this proposal addressed most of the ISRP concerns. The questions raised by the ISRP were answered in detail. This project is not solely dependent on data collected through the CHaMP program nor is it dependent upon the funding of CHaMP. Rather, it is intended to assist all RM&E efforts in the Basin with monitoring designs, data management, and analysis. This project also is intended to develop methods for integrating various data sources and apply this information to address multi-scale questions of status and trends of fish and habitat attributes in the basin. Key objectives of the project are to assess the extent and quality of existing data sources, identify key gaps, and develop a region-wide "master sample" framework that can be applied to select sampling locations. The primary activities for FY12-14 supported by this proposal are the maintenance of the master sample web tool (GRTS sampling framework), the support of statistical expertise for monitoring design, and support for data management and analysis. A standardized sampling framework developed using GRTS protocols would be a worthwhile tool and the GRTS methodology is consistent with the direction being applied in the Columbia River Basin and elsewhere in the region. The availability of the framework should be especially helpful for smaller RM&E projects in the Basin. The entire vision of how this PNAMP effort will be coordinated with efforts supported by CHaMP, ISEMP, and other monitoring programs is not fully developed, but this approach appears to be a reasonable step towards a basinwide monitoring program.

The data management system, on which this proposal is based, could be extremely valuable to monitoring efforts in the Columbia River Basin and a test of this system is a worthwhile effort. However, the description of the project in this proposal is incomplete and confusing. The lack of correspondence between the stated project objectives and the work elements and deliverables should be rectified. As this project depends upon the successful development of the web-based data management system, a detailed description of progress on this tool to date and the likelihood that it will be available for a test with the CHaMP data by 2012 should be included. Some discussion of whether the CHaMP data sets (assuming CHaMP is funded) will have progressed sufficiently by 2012 to enable a reliable test of the system also should be discussed. A more thorough discussion about the nature of the relationship between ISTM and other projects in the basin also should be added. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives Theoretically, the products generated by this proposal should provide a very real benefit to the monitoring efforts, ongoing and planned, in the Columbia River Basin. A tool that would enable a monitoring practitioner to select sample sites from a master list, identify what activities had already occurred at these sites and provide access to analytical tools and support are all very worthwhile goals. However, this proposal is poorly organized and fails to provide information on several elements key to the success of this project. A link was provided to a draft proposal at the PNAMP website, which provided some additional information. However, the web version of the proposal and the one submitted for RME review had different objectives. The overarching objective provided for this project was “to develop a coordinated fish and habitat monitoring program to assess the status and trend of salmon and steelhead populations and tributary habitat conditions in the Lower Columbia River (LCR).” However, the work elements and deliverables in the proposal do not address this objective; the website draft proposal did. One objective of the website draft proposal was the development of a web-based data management system. Successful completion of the deliverables in the proposal reviewed by the ISRP is contingent on completion of this data management system by OSU and the conversion of this system into a web-based tool by a private vendor by the end of 2011. No information is provided regarding progress to date on development of the system or the likelihood that it could be ready to test in 2012. The proposers noted early in their document that this project does not conform to the proposal template. As a result, the ISRP found this proposal difficult to understand. It was unclear from the information provided what this project will actually deliver and when it will arrive. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This is a new project that addresses an old problem. Some historical perspective on environmental monitoring in the Columbia Basin would have provided a context for this proposal. How is status and trend monitoring conducted and the data synthesized now? What are the present deficiencies and what exactly are we trying to improve? The history of this specific project also is not provided in the proposal. It was possible to obtain some of this information from the linked draft proposal at the PNAMP website. But neither of these documents provided any indication of progress on an element of fundamental importance. Because successful execution of this project is entirely dependent upon completion of the data management system, some discussion of progress on this effort to date should have been included in the proposal. The adaptive management component of this project is implied rather than specified in the proposal. Clearly, the efficient, coordinated compilation, storage and analysis of monitoring data on fish and tributary habitat in the Columbia Basin should greatly improve the delivery of relevant information to managers. But the process by which this exchange of information would occur was not described in the proposal. The logical home for this adaptive management element may be with the CHaMP program, rather than with the ISTM. But if this is the case, this fact should have been discussed in the proposal and a link provided to a description of the adaptive management process in the CHaMP program. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The activities described in this proposal are closely aligned with the CHaMP program and the relationship between this large monitoring effort and the ISTM is adequately described. Links to documents that describe the CHaMP program and affiliated habitat monitoring projects in detail would have been useful. One concern with the association with CHaMP is that this program has not yet been fully funded or approved at the expanded scale. If CHaMP is not supported, what happens to this project? The proposal also indicated a relationship between this project and a long list of other activities occurring in the Columbia Basin. Most of these relationships appear to be limited to the ISTM providing review and recommendations on monitoring plans. But the manner in which these reviews would be conducted (part of the official review cycle so the ISTM and ISRP review would be on the same schedule?) and the manner in which ISTM recommendations would be incorporated into these projects (incorporation of input from ISTM considered mandatory before these projects can gain access to the ISTM data management system and tools?) was not specified. The nature of the association of these listed projects with ISTM and CHaMP programs should be provided. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods As noted above, the deliverables for this project do not align well with the objective stated at the beginning of the proposal; “....to develop a coordinated fish and habitat monitoring program to assess the status and trend of salmon and steelhead populations and tributary habitat conditions in the Lower Columbia River (LCR).” The proposal really focuses on a test of this data management and analysis tool with data being collected by the CHaMP program. The fact that CHaMP has not yet been funded raises a concern about this project. The work elements and deliverables in the proposal are not appropriate for the development of a monitoring program on the LCR. They are appropriate for implementing a test of the data management and support system and providing technical support for use of the ISTM data tools by monitoring practitioners in the basin. This lack of correspondence between the objective of the program and the deliverables and work elements should be corrected. The purpose of the long list of variables provided under each project deliverable was unclear. Presumably, these are the monitoring variables that will be supported by the data management system. But some explanation of why they are included multiple times in this proposal should be provided. The section describing deliverables, work elements, and methods lacked specificity for some critical items. Which CHaMP datasets will be used? As most of the CHaMP monitoring efforts will only commence data collection after funding approval following this review cycle, when will a test of the ISTM system be feasible? A time line for the project work elements and deliverables should have been included in the proposal.