Section 1 - We understand that a weir and RST are present at the hatchery to count fish-in and fish-out as part of an ISS project. However, the ISRP is unsure how these are currently being used for evaluating the success of the habitat improvement projects.

The answer to the ISRP was brief but does indicate that the project personnel have knowledge of the current monitoring programs. It would have been helpful to identify the entities and funding sources conducting the Before/After investigation and the aerial survey of spawning distribution.

Section 2 - What are the plans for monitoring once the ISS study is complete?

The response is adequate. The ISRP recommends continuation of the RST to measure fishin/fish-out on the system. Are there alternatives to the RST if funding is not received at the end of the project? Given the long lead times to investigate alternatives, some planning is needed now if funding is in doubt.

Section 3 - The current ISS study is now in the post-treatment years to examine what happens after ISS stocking is terminated. But the ISRP understands that a new treatment is being contemplated prior to completion of this post-treatment phase. How long will the posttreatment phase be monitored before a new treatment is applied?

See our qualification.

Section 4 - An ISEMP project takes place in a neighboring watershed; are there any plans to implement an ISEMP on this watershed as well?

The sponsors plan to wait until ISEMP is complete before changing any methods in the Pahsimeroi project. Many of the same people are involved on both projects. Rather than waiting for the end of the ISEMP, are there lessons learned from the ISEMP now that can improve the Pahsimeroi project, e.g., better tools for data management, better ways to conduct assessment?

Habitat restoration has been ongoing for many years in the Pahsimeroi based on cooperative efforts with willing landowners. The site visit provided a good overview of the efforts and context for many of the decisions made.

The ISRP’s response request centers on the monitoring and evaluation of this project.

1) We understand that a weir and RST are present at the hatchery to count fish-in and fish-out as part of an ISS project. However, the ISRP is unsure how these are currently being used for evaluating the success of the habitat improvement projects?

2) What are the plans for monitoring once the ISS study is complete?

3) The current ISS study is now in the post-treatment years to examine what happens after ISS stocking is terminated. But the ISRP understands that a new treatment is being contemplated prior to completion of this post-treatment phase. How long will the post-treatment phase be monitored before a new treatment is applied?

4) An ISEMP project takes place in a neighboring watershed; are there any plans to implement an ISEMP on this watershed as well?

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

The Pahsimeroi River project is related to many of the other regional programs that have been developed, and this is clearly described in the proposal.

The ISRP found the technical background a bit too brief. The description of limiting factors and citation to the subbasin plan provides a reasonable starting place to establish a habitat restoration strategy or approach in the Pahsimeroi. The linkage to SHIPUS priority I and priority II reaches and tributaries is also a reasonable beginning point. However, the Pahsimeroi River needs a comprehensive outline for tributary reconnections, diversion screening, diversion consolidation, passage, and riparian restoration to achieve specific improvements in adult pre-spawning survival, spawning distribution, juvenile rearing distribution, juvenile abundance and juvenile condition. The premise is that fixing passage, adding water, screening diversions, and improving riparian condition will yield a net benefit to spring/summer Chinook and steelhead. The problem statement does not indicate how much improvement in fish survival and growth is needed to achieve restoration objectives or how much habitat restoration is needed to improve fish population vital statistics. It would be helpful if some measure of distance to the final goal is provided, for example is the restoration 10%, 50%, 75% complete?

The proposal lists three objectives: to increase survival and abundance of anadromous salmonids, provide improved fish passage to suitable habitat, and increase survival and abundance of resident salmonids. These are all reasonable objectives, but definitive metrics that can be used to evaluate physical habitat improvement and fish survival improvement are lacking. Without such metrics, it will be impossible for the sponsors to make conclusions about the extent of improvements derived from their efforts.

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

Accomplishments have been considerable in the 18 years of this project. Because of the volume of activities, the history/results section was limited to selected activities since 2008. Unfortunately, the brief presentation made it difficult for the ISRP to grasp the full extent of the work done. However, the site visit was most helpful in putting the work in context.

A major evaluation discussion is required on how the past actions are meeting restoration goals within the subbasin, BiOp, and Fish and Wildlife Program timelines. The RPA 35.1 objectives for the Pahsimeroi should be included and a summary of projects selected to meet the RPA targets presented. The problem statement should include enough information for the ISRP to determine what RPA 35.1 obligations have been achieved. For example is the restoration 10%, 50%, or 75% complete?

Some thought is needed on how to present this quantity of information in a succinct fashion. Maps and photos may be a better way to convey this information rather than summary tables. For example, the water delivery system in the basin is quite complex and these complexities are difficult to grasp based on the written proposal.

The adaptive management section primarily addressed individual project actions, not whether cumulative actions are achieving restoration objectives. For example, the proposal states that sprinkler irrigation is being adopted to replace flood irrigation and that this change is improving flow, water quality, or physical space in the stream. But details on actual monitoring of these outcomes are not provided.

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

There is no mention of projects collecting fish or habitat data in the Pahsimeroi River. This information should be added. Monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness also needs to be added to several sections of the proposal, even when the work is being conducted by others under a different proposal, or by a different restoration program.

Not unexpectedly, the emerging limiting factors identified for this basin are the same as in several other upper Salmon River proposals. One emerging factor not considered is the impact of any anticipated changes in land use or ownership structures.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is a long list of deliverables including passage barrier removal, fencing, and diversion improvements. Maps summarizing the location of these activities would be helpful.

Projects appear to be based on opportunistic events from landowners who have agreed to have work done. Consequently, there is little description of how priorities are established, alternatives compared, and final design and implementation executed given the need to work with willing participants. More details on how these issues are handled in project development would improve the proposal. Again, the site visit provided much needed context for the ISRP.

Information on compliance and effectiveness monitoring is needed. This monitoring may be completed by other staff and proposals, but, as stated above, the actual tasks need to be discussed somewhere in this proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The actions are all expected to improve existing habitat, make new habitat available, or improve survival. However, no monitoring protocols were identified.