In our preliminary review, we requested responses on the following topics:

1. M&E matrix – lead. In their response, the proponents provided a table of 17 project activities for seven BPA-funded projects in the Walla Walla subbasin with brief descriptions of the sponsors, locations, focal species, types of monitoring, timing of monitoring, and data storage and archiving. The response also included a map of the monitoring locations for 19 types of monitoring in the subbasin (Figure 1). Three support projects provided information to the lead project. The proponents created a table that briefly identified the connections between implementation and M&E projects and described their current collaborations with other projects to develop a summary or framework for M&E in the Walla Walla subbasin. The response did not fully describe linkages between the implementation and M&E projects. Information on the type of ongoing or past M&E activities, locations, timeframe, and transfer of information between projects would have been useful in the M&E summary. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. We anticipate that the Fish and Wildlife Program will identify the specific elements and formats for these RM&E summaries and matrices in the future. The ISRP anticipates that this project will coordinate with Council staff to provide important information for the coordinated future M&E summaries for this geographic area.

CTUIR’s GIS department is addressing an important regional need by creating a web mapping application to assist projects in assigning monitoring locations with associated habitat projects in the CDMS database. Additional attributes will link M&E datasets with habitat projects to identify data sets associated with specific habitat projects. The project is exploring issues that need to be addressed for the final M&E coordination summary. The proponents plan to expand the mapping application to include M&E activities of other cooperators in the future.

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. The proponents provided a satisfactory overview of the Adaptive Management process being used by the project. The project’s Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (CTUIR 2018) indicates that reviews of status and trends data, working hypotheses, key assumptions, and decision rules occur annually. Methods used by the project also are reviewed and changed when necessary. Several examples of how methods were changed were given. These included changing the location of the project’s rotary screw traps in the upper Walla Walla subbasin, doubling the application of PIT tags on hatchery origin smolts, and the use of two PIT tag detection barges installed close to the mouth of the Walla Walla River. All changes were made to increase the accuracy of smolt survival and abundance estimates. However, changes in methods may not permit sound data comparisons among years as abrupt increases/decreases in trends associated with these methodological changes may reflect a reduction in measurement bias rather than a real response to management actions. Consequently, whenever such substantial methodological changes are made, it is important to note their occurrence in the project’s databases. Additionally, when possible, efforts should be made to collect data using both the old and new methods to allow data calibration.

Relationship of WDFW spring Chinook releases to CTUIR release

The proponents also gave a complete and informative response to our questions regarding the planned annual of release of 100,000 yearling spring Chinook salmon from the Walla Walla Hatchery into the Touchet River. Currently, these fish will not be released into the Touchet River. Instead, it is anticipated that the 2012 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the co-managers will be modified so these fish can be released into Mill Creek. The proponents supplied a brief, but satisfactory, explanation of how PIT and CWT tags plus PitPro software will be used to estimate the smolt survival, SAR, and SAS values of these fish.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

The primary emphasis of the project has been to collect VSP (abundance, productivity, survival rates, and distribution) data on re-introduced spring Chinook and to a lesser extent on ESAlisted summer steelhead in Mill Creek, South Fork Walla Walla, and the mainstem Walla Walla River. Although bull trout are another ESA-listed species in the watershed, observations on these fish have been restricted to video monitoring at the Nursery Bridge Dam (located downstream of the North and South Forks of the Walla Walla River). The project has provided important monitoring and evaluation data to CTUIR, ODFW, and WDFW fishery managers. For example, the abundance and SAR values of summer run steelhead and spring Chinook salmon have been tracked since 2002 and these data are being used to guide future management actions. Data collected on spring Chinook, for instance, indicated that CTUIR objectives for harvest and conservation would not be reached using ongoing adult out-plants and releases of smolts into the subbasin. A spring Chinook salmon hatchery located on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River was recently built and will be used to augment the spring Chinook reintroduction program.

The hatchery will begin fish culture operations in 2021 and a pilot release of ~125,000 yearling smolts is scheduled to occur in 2023. Releases of ~500,000 yearling smolts are expected to begin in 2024 and annually thereafter. In 2013, 2015, and 2018, the ISRP reviewed the Master Plan and the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Walla Walla spring Chinook Hatchery. Our 2018 review (ISRP 2018-9) produced a finding of meets scientific review with eight qualifications. Two of the qualifications asked for more information on within hatchery operations. The remaining six dealt with post-release topics. During the project’s presentation it was made clear that hatchery personnel would be responsible for monitoring and reporting of within hatchery performance metrics (200003802). Conversely, post-release performance of the hatchery’s yearling spring Chinook salmon releases will be monitored, assessed, and reported by personnel associated with this project (200003900).

Data from the project are being incorporated into an adaptive management process by fishery managers to adjust the spring Chinook salmon reintroduction program and to track VSP parameters of these fish and of summer steelhead in Mill Creek and the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. The proposal does not explain how the project reviews its own procedures and determines when changes to its methods and objectives may be necessary, however.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following in a point-by-point response to assist our review of the proposal:

1. M&E matrix - lead. One of the challenges for ISRP reviewers is understanding the specific monitoring that is being conducted for multiple implementation projects. Habitat restoration projects or hatchery projects implement actions that are intended to address limiting factors and benefit fish and wildlife. Most of these projects do not directly monitor habitat conditions or biological outcomes, but most identify other projects in the basin that monitor aspects of physical habitat or focal fish species. The monitoring project(s) in the basin provides essential monitoring data for habitat, juvenile salmonid abundance and distribution, outmigration, survival, and adult returns for salmon and steelhead. Some monitoring projects focus on status and trends in basins, while others focus on habitat relationships and responses to local actions. It is unclear what monitoring the monitoring project(s) conducts for each implementation project.

Given the regional leadership responsibilities of this M&E project, the ISRP is requesting the Walla Walla Sub-Basin Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation Project (200003900) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the geographic area. The summary should provide a table or matrix to identify what is being monitored for each implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. The summary also should explain how the projects are working together to evaluate progress toward addressing limiting factors and identify future actions. A map or maps could help identify the locations of monitoring actions. The monitoring information should clearly explain whether the biological monitoring is local information for the specific implementation site or basin scale monitoring of status and trends or fish in/fish out. We are asking implementation and other monitoring projects to assist your project in producing this summary.

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. The ISRP requests that the proponents explain the adaptive management process used to evaluate their methods and objectives. The ISRP encourages the proponents to highlight examples of project adjustments based on M&E results.

3. Relationship of WDFW spring Chinook releases to CTUIR release. 100,000 yearling spring Chinook salmon originating from the South Fork Walla Walla Hatchery were scheduled to be annually released into the Touchet River beginning in 2024. This release was curtailed due to planned releases of 250,000 yearling spring Chinook salmon by WDFW into the Touchet subbasin. A clear description or explanation of the relationship of the WDFW releases to the CTUIR release is warranted. Information on where the 100,000 smolts from three South Fork Walla Walla Hatchery will now be released and how their in-river survival, SAR values, etc. will be evaluated should also be described in the response.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal narrative clearly states the overall aims and expected outcomes of the project. General biological and implementation goals were presented for natural- (NOR) and hatcheryorigin (HOR) spring Chinook and summer run steelhead originating from the South Fork Walla Walla River and Mill Creek. A supplementary general goal of assisting in bull trout spawner surveys and documenting trout movements in the South Fork Walla Walla were also described.

Annual project objectives by fish species are shown in a flow chart and more completely described in the proposal’s Method section. Although not presented as SMART objectives, the project’s annual workflow and assorted tasks are easily understood. However, to facilitate the project’s annual adaptive process, we recommend that the proponents develop SMART objectives and use them in an annual adaptive management cycle. With some slight reconfigurations, such objectives could be produced from the proposal’s Methods and Objectives sections. The proposed work directly benefits tribal and non-tribal fishery managers. Data derived from the project’s tasks will track the effects of hatchery and habitat improvements on the subbasin’s salmonid populations.

Q2: Methods

The description of the methods being employed provides understandable summaries of the steps, procedures, and tools being used. Additional information about specific methods is also provided by links to finalized methods in the MonitoringResources.org web site.

Methods used by fishery biologists conducting “adult in” and “smolts out” evaluations have evolved over time in the Pacific Northwest. The ISRP commends the proponents for using upto-date methods and for breaking ground on new approaches. The Walla Walla Barge PIT tag array is an example of an innovative approach the project is successfully using to detect and quantify PIT tagged salmonids in a large river and deep-water environment where tag detection is often problematic.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents indicate that once the South Fork Walla Walla Hatchery has become fully operational (2022) that CTUIR, ODFW, and WDFW will draft an Annual Operations Plan that will be informed by results of monitoring and evaluation activities occurring in the subbasin. No formal annual adaptive management process was, however, described. The ISRP recommends that an annual adaptive management process be developed and implemented by proponents to include measurable benchmarks for viability along with if/then actions responding to measured outcomes. For example, adaptive scenarios will differ if returns are small versus those that are large. With some additional thought, for instance, the project’s described implementation objectives, data analyses, and work products could be folded into an annual adaptive management process. Because the project has been in place for over a decade, the ISRP recognizes that substantial changes in most of the project’s M&E activities are not likely. However, once the hatchery is operational and releases of spring Chinook smolts start to occur new monitoring and evaluation opportunities and challenges may occur.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

One long-term goal of the project is to establish a locally adapted spring Chinook population via a hatchery program. The hatchery will become fully operational in 2022, with smolt releases occurring during the spring of 2024. To promote local adaption, broodstock for the hatchery is expected to originate from HOR and NOR spring Chinook adults returning to the South Fork Walla Walla River. Eggs from spring Chinook trapped at Three Mile Dam on the Umatilla River will be utilized, as necessary, to reach the new hatchery’s production goals. Smolts from the hatchery will be used to help with the spring Chinook reintroduction effort taking place in the Walla Walla subbasin.

Data from the project has demonstrated the feasibility of reintroducing spring Chinook into the subbasin. Releases of out-of-basin smolts have occurred, adults have been produced, and natural reproduction has taken place in the South Fork Walla Walla River and Mill Creek. The project found no difference in the survival of HOR or NOR smolts as they emigrated through the subbasin. However, monitoring data indicated that a survival bottleneck for emigrating smolts occurs in the Walla Walla Valley. Knowledge of this problem has prompted the proponents to explore alternative release locations to enhance juvenile survival. Additionally, the project’s use of new equipment (two Barges with vertical PIT tag detectors) capable of perceiving PIT tagged fish in a large river environment is providing researchers and managers with an important opportunity to evaluate the utility of this approach throughout the Columbia River Basin.

The proposed work is important and is well justified. The project will provide important information on status and trends of steelhead and reintroduced spring Chinook in the Walla Walla River and its tributaries. Major results of the project were presented comprehensively in the proposal and progress to date is in line with project objectives. The presentation to the ISRP was well done and addressed many of our questions.

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

The project directly addresses objectives of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan and is consistent with its RM&E needs and recommendations. It emphasizes meeting NOAA-Fisheries VSP monitoring needs and guidelines. It is also consistent with the Lower Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, the mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan (2009), and the Council’s MERR.

The objectives presented in the Objectives and Project Deliverables section provide a general idea of what the project is about. Specific objectives can be inferred from the study design and methods, but it would have been helpful if they had been clearly stated.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project has made significant progress in evaluating adult and juvenile salmonid abundance, distribution, and productivity and is continuing to find ways to improve reliability of data. For example, it has been hampered to a degree by several problems that have complicated adult enumeration including different enumeration methods (video cameras, weirs) at different locations within the subbasin with dissimilar detection or capture, and adult spawning below detection facilities. Due to these factors the reliability and comparability between tributaries of adult estimates is somewhat uncertain. The proponents are exploring ways to improve accuracy of adult counts and establish additional counting sites. It would have been helpful if they had discussed these potential improvements and indicated how (or how much) they would improve estimates of returns.

Results presented were rather extensive and included redd count data, genetic analyses, movement patterns of radiotagged fish, returns of hatchery and naturally spawning adults, and estimates of recruits per spawner, in-basin smolt survival, and SARs. The presentation of results could have been made more concise if extraneous information pertaining primarily to operations and activities were omitted.

In relation to adaptive management, the proponents did not specifically indicate changes made in the project based on previous results. They did indicate how information from the project is used by managers. It is apparent, though, that adaptive changes are being made to improve accuracy and precision of data such as adult returns. These changes are a good indication that the project will continue to operate in an adaptive mode and seek ways to improve data collection.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The project cooperates and coordinates with watershed councils, irrigation districts, state and federal agencies, and numerous other organizations. It is closely associated with two other fish monitoring and evaluation projects in the Walla Walla Subbasin. It is also related to a number of other BPA funded projects.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Methods and metrics are reasonably detailed, are standard for assessing salmonid abundance and survival, and appear appropriate for addressing the objectives. The proposal could be better organized, extraneous material eliminated, and redundancy reduced. At least in part these problems could be attributed to the proposal format.

The proposal would have been easier to follow if specific objectives were first stated (e.g., enumerate adults), then the methods and metrics for accomplishing each objective for each species were provided. For example, for each species:
• How will number of returning adults be enumerated (facility location, method of enumeration, measurements, time frame, relative precision and accuracy of enumeration methods, problems encountered that reduce precision and accuracy, how these problems will be dealt with, etc.)?
• How will hatchery and naturally spawning fish be differentiated?
• How many fish will be marked and where, what information will be gained from the marked fish?
• How will the data be analyzed?

Most of this information is provided in the proposal, but it is difficult to associate it with individual species and tributaries. There certainly are elements of the study design, methods, metrics, and estimation of parameters such as SARs that are common to all species and these could have been pointed out and consolidated, but there appear to be some important differences between species, for example in the way adults are enumerated, and special problems presented due to the differing life histories. It appears that all of the necessary elements are present in the proposal. The proponents just need to present it in a more concise, logical, and understandable way. Maps of the basin, river channels and names, and locations of facilities are not clear, perhaps due to the Taurus format. It would be helpful if a map showing major spawning distributions of each species with an explanation would have been provided.

The proposed work is important and is well justified. The project will provide important information on status and trends of steelhead and reintroduced spring Chinook in the Walla Walla River and its tributaries. Major results of the project were presented comprehensively in the proposal and progress to date is in line with project objectives. The presentation to the ISRP was well done and addressed many of our questions. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project directly addresses objectives of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan and is consistent with its RM&E needs and recommendations. It emphasizes meeting NOAA-Fisheries VSP monitoring needs and guidelines. It is also consistent with the Lower Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, the mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan (2009), and the Council’s MERR. The objectives presented in the Objectives and Project Deliverables section provide a general idea of what the project is about. Specific objectives can be inferred from the study design and methods, but it would have been helpful if they had been clearly stated. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The project has made significant progress in evaluating adult and juvenile salmonid abundance, distribution, and productivity and is continuing to find ways to improve reliability of data. For example, it has been hampered to a degree by several problems that have complicated adult enumeration including different enumeration methods (video cameras, weirs) at different locations within the subbasin with dissimilar detection or capture, and adult spawning below detection facilities. Due to these factors the reliability and comparability between tributaries of adult estimates is somewhat uncertain. The proponents are exploring ways to improve accuracy of adult counts and establish additional counting sites. It would have been helpful if they had discussed these potential improvements and indicated how (or how much) they would improve estimates of returns. Results presented were rather extensive and included redd count data, genetic analyses, movement patterns of radiotagged fish, returns of hatchery and naturally spawning adults, and estimates of recruits per spawner, in-basin smolt survival, and SARs. The presentation of results could have been made more concise if extraneous information pertaining primarily to operations and activities were omitted. In relation to adaptive management, the proponents did not specifically indicate changes made in the project based on previous results. They did indicate how information from the project is used by managers. It is apparent, though, that adaptive changes are being made to improve accuracy and precision of data such as adult returns. These changes are a good indication that the project will continue to operate in an adaptive mode and seek ways to improve data collection. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The project cooperates and coordinates with watershed councils, irrigation districts, state and federal agencies, and numerous other organizations. It is closely associated with two other fish monitoring and evaluation projects in the Walla Walla Subbasin. It is also related to a number of other BPA funded projects. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Methods and metrics are reasonably detailed, are standard for assessing salmonid abundance and survival, and appear appropriate for addressing the objectives. The proposal could be better organized, extraneous material eliminated, and redundancy reduced. At least in part these problems could be attributed to the proposal format. The proposal would have been easier to follow if specific objectives were first stated (e.g., enumerate adults), then the methods and metrics for accomplishing each objective for each species were provided. For example, for each species: • How will number of returning adults be enumerated (facility location, method of enumeration, measurements, time frame, relative precision and accuracy of enumeration methods, problems encountered that reduce precision and accuracy, how these problems will be dealt with, etc.)? • How will hatchery and naturally spawning fish be differentiated? • How many fish will be marked and where, what information will be gained from the marked fish? • How will the data be analyzed? Most of this information is provided in the proposal, but it is difficult to associate it with individual species and tributaries. There certainly are elements of the study design, methods, metrics, and estimation of parameters such as SARs that are common to all species and these could have been pointed out and consolidated, but there appear to be some important differences between species, for example in the way adults are enumerated, and special problems presented due to the differing life histories. It appears that all of the necessary elements are present in the proposal. The proponents just need to present it in a more concise, logical, and understandable way. Maps of the basin, river channels and names, and locations of facilities are not clear, perhaps due to the Taurus format. It would be helpful if a map showing major spawning distributions of each species with an explanation would have been provided.

Most of the ISRP's comments were adequately addressed. The sponsors, however, did not truly address the need for prioritization of M&E actions to answer key management questions. The ISRP recognizes that the sponsors provided sound justification for their basic monitoring designs, taking an EMAP approach to assess smolt emigration and adult returns. Moreover, the conceptual Venn diagram is a good heuristic tool and the sponsors did provide better information on completion of tasks and activities, but they did not provide much quantitative data of findings to date. Thus, while the response represents an important improvement, the originally identified deficiency remains in place. Ultimately, the ISRP will need some detailed specifics to more fully evaluate the rigor of the science behind this collaborative M&E project.

The ISRP also identifies the need for this project (and directly related projects) to undergo an independent, comprehensive, site review to assess the integration of M&E data with management decisions before the next cycle of project funding. The sponsors have been conducting this project for six years. What is the justification for continuing project and what has been learned (and management adapted or maintained to date)?

Qualification: Finally, a decision analysis framework for fisheries management is required that incorporates risk assessment and options. As presented, the response (which is similar to that from Proposal #199905001) did not address the alignment of M&E tasks with key management decisions and objectives (as provided reasonably well within the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (see Table 7.9)). In short, Objectives as listed in the proposal and response do not provide a clear program of data-driven evaluation and adaptive management.