Principal funding: Bonneville Power Administration, NOAA-Fisheries Principal Investigator: Dr. Chris Jordan, NOAA-Fisheries Actual work on the project done by ~100 collaborators Brief Overview of ISEMP

Why this project exists: Current monitoring programs throughout the Columbia basin were not developed under a cohesive design Data from current monitoring programs in Columbia River Basin of unknown adequacy for ESA assessments & recovery planning Data collection not based on statistical samples, lacks standardized sampling, protocols, and data management strategy

How this project is addressing these issues: Creating a framework within which monitoring plans can be developed under a cohesive design Design monitoring programs to meet policy needs Identifying information gaps, developing standardized protocols to assess status of anadromous salmonids & their tributary habitat, creating data management strategy

This project’s true goals: Mission –BPA’s research and development test-bed for the generation of tools, guidance and best management practices for efficient status and effectiveness monitoring of salmonid populations and habitat status and restoration in the interior Columbia River basin. Operating principals –Design data management to support the full life-cycle of data, from generation to analysis. –Foster the cultural change required to improve data collection, management and analysis practices. –Develop answers come from quantitative assessments of data and on-the-ground examples, not opinions.

What ISEMP is actually doing for the F&WP Designing and implementing status and trends monitoring and data analysis that – can answer management questions – is cost effective – integrates existing programs to the maximum extent Designing effectiveness monitoring for tributary habitat restoration at the population scale that – can assess actions efficacy – serve as a general model for project selection, implementation, and evaluation Data management that – makes data available, now and into the future – maximizes the information content of existing data – maximizes the potential to share/compile information across the F&WP

Delivering RME guidance that integrates across scales and programs Delivering assessments of protocols and indicators for information content (relative to ESA fish population processes) Delivering sampling design assessment for robustness, efficiency, practicality Demonstrating and expand the community of practitioners’ willingness to try something different Delivering tools (data management and analysis) for general distribution and use What ISEMP is actually doing for the F&WP

Status and Trend Effectiveness/IMW 3 Approaches Traditional Experimental Modeling 3 Subbasins Wenatchee/Entiat John Day Salmon

Why three pilot basins? Why such different approaches? – Geographic differences may dictate indicators – Institutional differences Existing RME Existing infrastructure/local management support Each pilot basin offers a unique set of opportunities and pathways – Data driven design (Wenatchee/Entiat) – Model driven design (Salmon River) – Mechanism driven design (John Day River) But end result will be single monitoring design guidance

Wenatchee River Basin Pilot Project 50 GRTS sites for physical and biological stream reach habitat metrics and fish density stratified by stream order and gradient 60 headwater streams samples quarterly for organic matter input to fish bearing streams stratified by ecoregion and land use 25 miles of spawning ground index surveys done weekly 25 GRTS sites for spawning surveys outside of index areas samples monthly 5 smolt traps running “continuously” 5 water quality monitors w/ 5 sensors logging hourly, plus monthly water grabs for chemistry Smolt trap and water quality sites

Intensively Monitored Watersheds are a good idea: biology of fish-habitat relationships is complex Can best be understood by concentrating monitoring and research efforts at a few locations Enables enough data on physical and biological attributes of a system to be collected Develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting salmon production in freshwater

What will it really take to do watershed- scale restoration (with monitoring)? Are projects actually implemented to address watershed- scale response? Who is coordinating the implementation of actions at the scale of watersheds? – At smaller scales it is ok to separate effectiveness monitoring from action implementation – There can be no separation between monitoring and actions at watershed scale – Watershed scale restoration actions must be run by the monitoring program

Lemhi River Effectiveness Monitoring Pilot Lemhi HCP Hydrograph normalization Tributary reconnection Need to monitoring overall program for “effectiveness”

Habitat QuantityHabitat Quality Channel Characteristics by Land Use Type: A Relating habitat availability to capacity, (c i ) 13 and 14; B Calibration using empirical and GIS data, ; C Hypothesis testing, 29 and 30 (cross- sectional), (pre/post). Survival/Productivity by Life History Stage: A Relating habitat quality to survival/productivity, (p i ) 15 and 16; B Calibration using empirical estimates of survival/productivity, 24-28; C Hypothesis testing, 31 and 32 (cross- sectional), (pre/post). Fry 1-3, (N 3,t+1 ) Parr 1-3, (N 4,t+1 ) Presmolt 1-3, (N 5,t+1 ) Smolt 1-3, (N 6,t+2 ) Egg 1-3, (N 2,t ) Ocean Immature Adult 8-10, (o t+x ) 1-3, (N 6,t+1 ) Spawner 1-3, (N 1,t ) Mature (Yes) 8-10, (o t+x ) Harvest (T) 11, (o t+x ) Survival (5-7), (O t+x ) Mature (No) Lemhi River Basin Pilot Project Habitat restoration effectiveness model

Lower 25 rm is simplified, straightened, plane- bedded channel On-going, proposed and potential in-stream restoration projects 60 treatment sites 10 pre-existing treatment sites 25 untreated control sites Snorkel, habitat surveys, other on-going monitoring to evaluate overall program effect on salmonid productivity Entiat River Effectiveness Monitoring Pilot

Bridge Ck (JDB) Effectiveness Monitoring Pilot

Data management – our meta data model

Rationale for project Developing tools to integrate existing projects into a programmatic approach to monitoring and evaluation. Developing tools to integrate data and information from existing projects into basin-wide data sets Good investment strategy for F&WP increase the value of existing projects, increase the efficiency of current work, generate standards for assessment and evaluation of projects and project proposals.