This project has treated 70 miles of stream in the past 20 years. The sponsors expressed frustration with what they perceive as a mixed message on the scale of monitoring and evaluation required of this type of habitat improvement project. They note that instructions from BPA and Council propose that this type of project should conduct only implementation and compliance monitoring and it should not exceed 5% of the budget. They cite dialog between Jim Geiselman from BPA and Lyman McDonald (formerly of the ISAB and ISRP) at a habitat-monitoring workshop several years ago as an example of the different expectations of the ISRP and BPA.

The ISRP acknowledges and appreciates the sponsor's frustration regarding the extent of monitoring and evaluation expected of them. To clarify for sponsors, the ISRP examines the sufficiency of data collections and evaluation to measure progress toward achieving biological objectives identified in a proposal, and benefits for focal species.

Concern # 1 raised by the sponsors: "This project should implement effectiveness monitoring" is a misinterpretation of the ISRP's preliminary review. In that review the ISRP states: "The effectiveness monitoring conducted by the sponsors, or other projects should be identified." Later in the review the ISRP states: "M&E could be accomplished by other projects, but needs to be detailed and address which project and entities will be doing it."

The ISRP does not suggest that individual projects need to conduct their own M&E. Other projects can accomplish that task. However, sponsors should be able to describe the M&E and summarize the status of the data collections, evaluations, and management implications.

The sponsors reply to the request for more detail on monitoring methods with a list of metrics and methods that they, or others, use for monitoring and evaluation. This is a reasonable beginning, but not a sufficient presentation of the monitoring for this project. For example, under the topic "Habitat Monitoring Transects," the sponsors state that these transects collect data in selected study areas. They go on to state that there are 140 habitat monitoring transects on four streams, and that data have been collected on three to five year intervals. This appears to be an impressive and important data set. For the ISRP to complete its evaluation of this project, it needs to know what streams were monitored, what kinds of treatment each stream received, what was the desired biological outcome (physical habitat or biological condition), how many years of data have been collected, how the analysis is being conducted, and what is the interpretation from the data set.

The sponsors provide a short but acceptable reply to the ISRP query about the management implications of the past 20 years of habitat restoration treatments.

Finally, the sponsors explain the 30 miles of spawning ground surveys conducted by project staff. They state that they did not include this data in the project history because they do not feel they can make any direct correlation between spawning adult fish and habitat modifications. The ISRP concludes that this is important data and an important conclusion. All of that information should be in the project history section.

Fundable (qualified), with the qualification that the ISRP should review a special report, or annual report, that presents an analysis of the data from this project together with a summary of the conclusions about benefits to the focal species and management recommendations for further habitat treatments. This should be reviewed by the ISRP in FY07.