This is a detailed, well organized proposal. The effort targets a number of key limiting factors previously identified for the watershed. The South Fork Salmon appears to be a watershed worthy of restoration based on the description of historical abundance. Quantitative deliverables were provided. A fine sediment goal of 28% seems high compared to recent review estimates of 14% for achieving high survival, but the sponsors justified the estimate based on NOAA criteria for this region.

The program relies on ISEMP and Action effectiveness monitoring conducted by other programs. NPT will conduct their own monitoring where others are not present. It was not described how these monitoring efforts would be coordinated, and that should be included in future proposals.

The lengthy proposal reflects a great deal of preparation effort and is clearly written. Proposed actions seem to have a good likelihood of improving spawning and rearing habitat for fish over time.

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

The objectives of the proposed work are clearly significant to regional programs. The proposal includes an excellent summary of information relevant to the problems and limiting factors being addressed.

Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments, and the degree of hatchery influence and demographic trends.

The problem statement includes a rich, compelling, and succinct explanation of limiting factors and indicates what aspects of the limiting factors will be addressed in this project.

The well-organized and well-reasoned section on proposed monitoring from compliance to status and trends was much appreciated, although it seems out of place in the problem statement. The ISRP appreciated that two of these rivers will be linked to CHaMP and ISEMP status and trends monitoring.

The five objectives are relevant and clearly defined; most are at least partially quantitative with explicit criteria for success or desired outcomes. An exception is Objective 3, protect and restore riparian habitats, for which no target is identified.

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

The effort to explain activities to date and to present preliminary evaluations of results is commendable. The informative tables and figures, well-reasoned discussions, and the overall attention to detail inspire confidence in the abilities of the project sponsors to complete this project and obtain meaningful results.

Descriptions of documented evidence from other studies and summary of lessons learned all show evidence of adaptive management and thoughtful consideration of previous comments by the ISRP. There is good detail on the use of GRAIP and other results.

Much attention was paid to describing the process by which efforts are prioritized. Graphics, maps, and photos were helpful.

The Adaptive Management discussion explained how project operations, especially protocols for assessing sediment delivery from roads and success of tree and shrub planting, have been improved from previous efforts. Well done.

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

A detailed section on collaborative activities provides compelling evidence of extensive and apparently successful project relationships.

The sponsors effectively presented the expected consequences of climate change and the implications for how restoration activities should be prioritized and implemented.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are described in commendable detail, but it is occasionally difficult to identify quantitative targets. In particular, the target for DELV-6 (Mine restoration) is vague.

Deliverables, work elements, and methods are well organized and clearly linked to objectives. The summary provided quantitative deliverables, which can then be used to judge whether the project was successfully implemented.

The sponsors largely rely upon CHaMP and ISEMP monitoring that is conducted by others in most watersheds; NPT will implement monitoring in remaining watersheds. The previous ISRP review mentioned the need for juvenile monitoring to determine the response to cleaner sediments. The monitoring description was the weak part of this proposal, largely because details were not described. The proposal referenced other monitoring efforts but did not describe in enough detail how the regional programs were to be conducted to evaluate fish responses.

This is a detailed, well organized proposal. The effort targets a number of key limiting factors previously identified for the watershed. The South Fork Salmon appears to be a watershed worthy of restoration based on the description of historical abundance. Quantitative deliverables were provided. A fine sediment goal of 28% seems high compared to recent review estimates of 14% for achieving high survival, but the sponsors justified the estimate based on NOAA criteria for this region.

The program relies on ISEMP and Action effectiveness monitoring conducted by other programs. NPT will conduct their own monitoring where others are not present. It was not described how these monitoring efforts would be coordinated, and that should be included in future proposals.

The lengthy proposal reflects a great deal of preparation effort and is clearly written. Proposed actions seem to have a good likelihood of improving spawning and rearing habitat for fish over time.

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

The objectives of the proposed work are clearly significant to regional programs. The proposal includes an excellent summary of information relevant to the problems and limiting factors being addressed.

Particularly helpful for this review were the concise summaries of the population units being targeted, their status and their relationship to MPG and ESU viability assessments, and the degree of hatchery influence and demographic trends.

The problem statement includes a rich, compelling, and succinct explanation of limiting factors and indicates what aspects of the limiting factors will be addressed in this project.

The well-organized and well-reasoned section on proposed monitoring from compliance to status and trends was much appreciated, although it seems out of place in the problem statement. The ISRP appreciated that two of these rivers will be linked to CHaMP and ISEMP status and trends monitoring.

The five objectives are relevant and clearly defined; most are at least partially quantitative with explicit criteria for success or desired outcomes. An exception is Objective 3, protect and restore riparian habitats, for which no target is identified.

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

The effort to explain activities to date and to present preliminary evaluations of results is commendable. The informative tables and figures, well-reasoned discussions, and the overall attention to detail inspire confidence in the abilities of the project sponsors to complete this project and obtain meaningful results.

Descriptions of documented evidence from other studies and summary of lessons learned all show evidence of adaptive management and thoughtful consideration of previous comments by the ISRP. There is good detail on the use of GRAIP and other results.

Much attention was paid to describing the process by which efforts are prioritized. Graphics, maps, and photos were helpful.

The Adaptive Management discussion explained how project operations, especially protocols for assessing sediment delivery from roads and success of tree and shrub planting, have been improved from previous efforts. Well done.

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

A detailed section on collaborative activities provides compelling evidence of extensive and apparently successful project relationships.

The sponsors effectively presented the expected consequences of climate change and the implications for how restoration activities should be prioritized and implemented.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are described in commendable detail, but it is occasionally difficult to identify quantitative targets. In particular, the target for DELV-6 (Mine restoration) is vague.

Deliverables, work elements, and methods are well organized and clearly linked to objectives. The summary provided quantitative deliverables, which can then be used to judge whether the project was successfully implemented.

The sponsors largely rely upon CHaMP and ISEMP monitoring that is conducted by others in most watersheds; NPT will implement monitoring in remaining watersheds. The previous ISRP review mentioned the need for juvenile monitoring to determine the response to cleaner sediments. The monitoring description was the weak part of this proposal, largely because details were not described. The proposal referenced other monitoring efforts but did not describe in enough detail how the regional programs were to be conducted to evaluate fish responses.