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.

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.

 

Objectives of the proposed project are to:

1) Assess status of stream habitat conditions within the Lolo Creek, Lochsa River and South Fork Clearwater River watersheds to ensure that current watershed rehabilitation activities address primary extant factors limiting salmonid production in the most effective manner possible.

2) Monitor trends of stream habitat conditions within the Lolo Creek, Lochsa River and South Fork Clearwater River watersheds to evaluate watershed scale effects of current implementation activities and facilitate adaptive management of future rehabilitation actions.

3) Provide status and trend data for Lolo Creek, Lochsa River and South Fork Clearwater River watershed salmonid habitat to NOAA Fisheries to address FCRPS Remand BiOp habitat/survival gaps identified for these watersheds.

4) Assess status of stream habitat conditions within the Imnaha River watershed to enable development of a prioritized salmonid habitat protection and rehabilitation strategy.

5) Provide systematic stream habitat status and trend data to ISEMP in support of CHaMP program objectives of assessing basin-wide habitat conditions and evaluating habitat management strategies.

 

 

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 Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) Department of Fisheries Resource Management (DFRM) Watershed Division submitted a project proposal "Evaluating stream habitat using the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan" in the BPA FY 2002 Provincial Review.  The project was recommended and funded at a reduced level to develop a more detailed statistical design and to address ISRP's questions and comments about the choice of "physical habitat parameters".  The NPT DFRM Watershed Division (sponsor) developed a more detailed statistical design in 2004 but was unable to reach agreement with BPA on physical habitat parameters; thus the project was discontinued prior to implementation of monitoring activities.

 

 

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.

 

The sponsor proposes to develop an index of stream habitat condition derived from integration of landscape covariates with multiple linear regression analyses of habitat data.  Index scores, intended to account for geoclimatic landscape effects on natural habitat variability at a watershed scale, will be used within the Imnaha River watershed to develop a prioritized salmonid habitat protection and rehabilitation strategy.  Index data derived from unmanaged ‘reference’ reaches will be used to evaluate established standards for habitat attributes relative to natural landscape effects on habitat attributes in assessing limiting factors for salmonid production within the Lolo Creek, Lochsa River and South Fork Clearwater River watersheds.  Salmonid habitat attribute standards weighted by landscape association will be assessed in conjunction with composite index scores to evaluate whether current restoration activities address primary limiting factors within the highest priority regions of the Lolo Creek, Lochsa River and South Fork Clearwater River watersheds.  Effects of on-going implementation activities will be assessed at the watershed scale by analysis of instream morphology, riparian vegetation, macroinvertebrate assemblage and water quality response variables through linear regression models while paired t-test analysis will be employed within those reaches in which probabilistic and legacy sites fall both above and below habitat restoration activities to analyze effects at the reach scale.  Data analysis, conclusions and management recommendations will be discussed with project area managers coordinating regional restoration activities and will be posted upon the sponsor’s web-based mapping interface.  The sponsor will utilize trend data analysis, conclusions and recommendations in re-evaluation of restoration activities at three year intervals.

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

Identifying the need to monitor FCRPS habitat gaps and evaluate watershed scale effects of restoration actions within in the Lolo Creek, Lochsa River and South Fork Clearwater River watersheds, as well as the need for a prioritized restoration strategy for the Imnaha River watershed, the sponsor initiated development of a habitat status and trend monitoring design early in 2010.  Through this development process, contact was made with ISEMP coordinators active in the Salmon River subbasin to identify regional data redundancy / compatibility issues and discuss potential for collaborative habitat monitoring.  Opportunities for collaborative monitoring were subsequently established through discussion of ISEMP’s Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP).  As proposed, the CHaMP program would be a basin wide stream habitat status and trends monitoring program built around a single habitat monitoring protocol with a program-wide approach to data collection and management.  The CHaMP program is intended to generate systematic habitat status and trends information that will be used to assess basin-wide habitat conditions which will in turn be correlated with biological response indicators to evaluate habitat management strategies.  Having participated in numerous PNAMP discussions and workshops focused on the need for regional standardization of watershed monitoring protocols, the sponsor supported the ideology of a systematic basin-wide habitat monitoring program.  In reviewing the CHaMP protocol draft and noting similarities to PIBO-EMAP based protocols previously developed and utilized by the sponsor, the sponsor agreed to generate systematic habitat status and trend data in support of ISEMP’s basin-wide assessment and evaluation goals and subsequently developed the proposed project in collaboration with the CHaMP proposal.  With this, it is the intent of both sponsor and ISEMP coordinators that project design, training, coordination, surveying and data management be performed in full collaboration with the CHaMP program.  Given sponsor experience in managing project design, training, surveying and data management, however, the proposed project would remain fully viable as an independent program addressing data gaps initially identified by the sponsor should the CHaMP proposal fail to be partially, or fully, funded.      

 

 

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 sample size of 25 sites per watershed was proposed to maintain consistency with the CHaMP program.  ISEMP coordinators developing CHaMP sampling designs specified a “sample size of 25 sites per watershed based on a preliminary Bayesian mixed model hierarchical regression analysis of 5 years of data from the Entiat status and trend monitoring program.”  ISEMP coordinators stated that “A fixed panel of 25 annually repeated sites in the Entiat captures spatial and temporal habitat information without redundancy, i.e., habitat characteristics have independent temporal trends at all 25 sites such that each site is capturing novel spatio-temporal information above and beyond that shared across the sites.  The analysis does not determine an “optimal” sample size, but ensures that 25 samples are not redundant.” 

 

 

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. 

 

It is the intent of both the sponsor and ISEMP that, given the CHaMP goal of maximizing program consistency and standardization through implementation of a standard set of fish habitat monitoring methods, the sponsor’s project is to be performed in full collaboration with the CHaMP program utilizing those methods specified within the final standardized CHaMP protocol in their entirety.  The final recommended CHaMP protocol is scheduled to be issued in the fall of 2010 for consistent use among collaborators in 2011.   

 

 

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 described earlier under 2. History, data was not collected for the sponsor monitoring project proposed 8 years ago.  The Clearwater River and Lolo Creek legacy sites referenced were established up to 9 years ago through sponsor projects 1996-077-02, 1996-077-05 and 2000-036-00.  These legacy sites are to be surveyed through application of both CHaMP protocols and original sponsor protocols for a proposed period of three years.  The spatially and temporally matched datasets derived from these efforts will be used to establish correlates in the depiction of status and detection of trends for attributes common to the two protocols.  These correlates will be used in development of data-transfer crosswalks to allow future CHaMP trend data to build upon prior analysis and temporally robust legacy datasets.

 

 

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.

 

All data is to be uploaded to the ISEMP Status, Trend & Effectiveness Monitoring (STEM) database and the sponsors existing offsite geospatial-relational database.  ISEMP’s stated intent is that the CHaMP program will use standardized data management, analysis and reporting and will assess monitoring methods and interpret monitoring data while providing others the resources necessary to replicate their analyses.  To avoid allocation of resources for duplicative efforts the sponsor will utilize that ISEMP analysis deemed applicable; however, it is presumed that CHaMP analysis will not meet all of the sponsor’s objectives.  To account for watershed scale variability of physical stream habitat resultant from natural shifts in landscape, the sponsors propose to evaluate the status of salmonid habitat within the Lolo Creek, Lochsa River, South Fork Clearwater River and Imnaha River watersheds through multimetric indices of stream habitat condition which utilize landscape covariates in conjunction with multiple linear regression analyses, as discussed by Al-Chokhachy et al. (2010).  Effects of on-going implementation activities will be assessed at the watershed scale by analysis of instream morphology, riparian vegetation, macroinvertebrate assemblage and water quality response variables through linear regression models while paired t-test analysis will be employed within those reaches in which probabilistic and legacy sites fall both above and below habitat restoration activities. 

 

 

 

Al-Chokhachy, R., B. B. Roper, and E. K. Archer. 2010. Evaluating the Status and Trends of Physical Stream Habitat in Headwater Streams within the Interior Columbia River and Upper Missouri River Basins Using an Index Approach. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:1041–1059.