The proponents are to be commended on a thoughtful and thorough response. The presentation of a point-by-point summary of the requested response issues (Responses 1-4 below) and suggested actions (5-10 below), along with a revised proposal reflecting these responses permitted a straightforward review. We address each of the response requests and suggested actions below.

1. Leading the development of a M&E matrix. The proponents for the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project replied to our response request by presenting a table of the BPA-funded projects in the Umatilla subbasin that identified the lead entities, coordination forums and timing, goals and objectives, and other information. The point-by-point response and the revised proposal also provide a map of locations for the M&E activities in the Umatilla River subbasin. Specifically, Table 1 lays out a matrix for 14 subbasin projects for coordination (with criteria and attributes in columns), such as a coordination forum for each project and the frequency of meetings; goals and objectives for each project; reporting documents and processes; and “consumers” of reports.
   
   The Table and Figures 1-4 help to clarify sources and pathways for CTUIR policy and management directives, as well as adaptive management and coordination processes for projects that contribute to the Umatilla Basin Restoration Program. 
   
   The response also indicates that CTUIR’s GIS department is creating a mapping application to assist 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 proponents plan to expand the mapping application to include M&E activities of other cooperators.
   
   In summary, no further response is needed for ISRP review purposes. However, in future workplans, reports, and proposals the ISRP suggests an even greater level of clarity may be achieved by specifying what is being measured for each implementation project. For example, a table column could be added to indicate which data sets or parameters are important to evaluating success or progress for each project’s activities or objectives. 
   
   
2. Response - SMART objectives. The proponents respond by reframing the objectives in the SMART format by inserting a table of objectives broken down by task to describe the SMART criteria. This response satisfies the ISRP’s request. 
   
   
3. Response - Reach-specific survival of outmigrating smolts. The proponents respond that this objective has been removed from the revised proposal. 
   
   
4. Response - Smolt-per-spawner ratios. The proponents’ response acknowledges the importance of monitoring smolt-per-spawner ratios and points out that these ratios are calculated and reported by another project (Project 198902400). The ISRP agrees that a duplication of effort in the current project is not warranted so long as the ratios are updated and reported regularly. Specifically, the graphic provided from Hanson and Schultz 2011 is approximately 10 years old with the last data point in 2008 and should be updated. The proponents’ response satisfies the ISRP’s request. 
   
   Suggested future actions. In addition to the above response requests from our preliminary review, we identified several issues that could be addressed in the future but did not require a response. The proponents provided responses to each of our suggestions, so our feedback follows:
   
   
5. Reliability of redd counts and smolt escapement relationships. The proponents address the ISRP’s comment by producing an alternate Figure 3b and describing the complementary (rather than duplicative) efforts of CTUIR and ODFW in redd surveys. They also describe conditions that may limit their ability to observe redds. Given this and other limitations, the ISRP has ongoing concerns over whether the surveys provide a scientifically supported and reliable index of abundance or spatial distribution of steelhead. The rationale for continuing with the surveys despite the acknowledged limitations is that “managers have asked us to maintain the index surveys for steelhead primarily for long term legacy trend-data.” Ultimately if the relationships are unreliable, their value for informing management actions is minimal. In fact, the redd survey data are likely inadequate to meet the goal of “annual status and trend monitoring of spatial and temporal distribution of natural steelhead and salmon spawning” (p. 23). Therefore, the proponents may consider abandoning the redd counts unless valuable for other demonstrated purposes. 
   
   
6. Screw trap data. The proponents’ response to our questions on screw trap data is sufficiently thorough. They describe some substantial issues in estimating annual production from trapping data by using smoothing methods to fill in missing data during periods when the traps cannot be fished. However, other programs in the Columbia River Basin are using smoothing approaches that may have utility here. It may be better to attempt to estimate total annual production using a smoothing procedure – even given the wide confidence intervals – than to estimate production only partially over the period the trap was fished, which varies considerably over years. Despite their reservations, the proponents clearly recognized potential benefits of using a smoothing procedure (e.g., Bonner and Schwarz, 2011) as the revised proposal now includes a commitment to run this model and compare results to estimates based on current procedures. 
   
   
7. Stock-Recruitment relationships. The ISRP appreciates the proponents’ intent to examine relationships with a Ricker Stock-Recruitment-Covariate model. These analyses will be an important contribution to future annual reports. One of the ISRP’s concerns relates to the practical issue pointed out by the proponents of “overhandling” outmigrating steelhead smolts to collect scales, thereby causing undue stress. As a result, the age composition of the smolt run each year is not reliably determined. This in turn means that egg-smolt survival and smolt-per-spawner relationships cannot be reliably estimated. The lack of aging data for smolts is a significant impediment to understanding causes for variation in freshwater production. The screw-trapping program already results in significant handling which includes a) a lengthy period between capture and fish processing (likely many hours), b) anesthetizing, measurement and marking (fin clip or PIT tag), c) release of marked fish upstream of the trap to estimate trap efficiency, and d) a repeat of much of this handling for fish that are recaptured. Removing a few scales from a subsample of all fish handled seems like a modest increase in handling relative to all others. Do any studies indicate that scale removal is more harmful then anesthetizing and tagging? Given the impact of an inadequate age sampling on the ultimate goal of the work, better support of this rationale is needed. 
   
   
8. Adapting management actions. The proponents indicate that their analyses provide critical information to managers. The process by which the information is then used to change and improve management directions is the essential part of adaptive management (see comments above for Response #1. M&E Matrix above). 
   
   
9. Methods. 
   1. Methods entered into MonitoringResources.org. The proponents indicate they have submitted methods in MonitoringResources.org. The ISRP recommends explicitly referencing and linking methods described in the proposal with the published method on MonitoringResources.org. This can be included in annual reports and future proposals.
   2. eDNA objective. The proponents indicate that they have removed this from the 2021 proposal for several practical reasons, including funding limits and utility to managers. The response satisfies the ISRP’s concern. The ISRP believes that eDNA can be an excellent tool to detect presence/absence and range of species, especially invasive nonnative species like smallmouth bass and northern pike. However, we recommend keeping in mind ISRP concerns about use for estimating abundance if such an objective is reinstated.
   3. Sampling for 6PPD Quinone. Proponents indicate they have removed this objective from the 2021 proposal. The response satisfies the ISRP’s concern.
   4. Water temperature monitoring. The proponents largely address the ISRP’s concerns by pointing to specific text in the original proposal. The response satisfies the ISRP’s concern about temperature data logger methods and acknowledges the information was provided in the original proposal. Also, the information provided about the use of backup loggers and continuous data downloads address the ISRP’s concern. Please include these points in future reports and proposals to complete the project record.
   5. Stream Discharge Monitoring. The proponents provide an expanded description of the streamflow monitoring network cost-shared with USGS. The ISRP encourages the proponents to evaluate whether the discharge information from these gauges is sufficient for their described purposes. This does not require a major analytical effort, but rather identification of any significant gaps in coverage in future reports and proposals.
   6. Redd Survey Sample Design. See our discussion above on Redd Survey issues (Recommendation #1. Redd surveys). 
      
      
10. Benefits to fish and wildlife.
    1. Demonstrate benefits. The ISRP suggested that the proponents missed an opportunity to provide more extensive and meaningful interpretation of their results to demonstrate benefits to fish and wildlife. The proponents indicate these will be forthcoming, but no outlet or venue was explicitly specified. Therefore, we recommend including expanded interpretation of results in future annual reports and proposals. The proponents need not copy hundreds of tables and figures from past or future annual reports to provide this interpretation (a concern from the proponents raised in their response). Instead, future proposals could briefly summarize the main findings and perhaps include critical graphs or tables (e.g., spawner-smolt plot with anomalies related to a habitat/flow/temperature condition).
    2. Redd survey question. The proponents clarify how previous ISRP reviews shaped their presentation of CTUIR and ODFW redd survey locations. Therefore, the surveys are purposefully complementary rather than redundant. We recommend including this point in future reports and proposals. See also our discussion above on Redd Survey issues (Recommendation #1. Redd surveys). 
    3. The proponents’ suggestion that McKay Creek would be productive if steelhead had access. The ISRP acknowledges its confusion and finds that the objective has merit. Therefore, we recommend including a briefly expanded description of the basis and approach as described in the response. Moreover, the moratorium on juvenile electrofishing should be referenced and explained in future reports and proposals to remind reviewers of these limitations.
    4. Fish passage studies. The proponents indicate that the ongoing passage assessments are necessary for adaptive management in a dynamic system. The information provided in the response is sufficient and should be included in annual reports and future proposals.
    5. Flow criteria needed for fish passage facilities. The proponents respond that the justification is to meet regulatory requirements by NOAA. This justification should be included in the project record by highlighting it in annual reports and future proposals.
    6. Summary of efforts and derived data. The ISRP acknowledges the limitations on space to include the full background as text or appendices. Thus, we appreciate the effort to provide “brief summaries and selected examples of the more interesting and relevant data in the proposal,” and to avoid redundancies with other project reports. Ultimately, the ISRP is better able to review and avoid confusion when projects propose objectives and tasks within the subbasin context and thoroughly report previous findings and benefits to fish and wildlife. We encourage the proponents to provide thorough descriptions of the projects’ results and benefits in future reports and proposals.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

This is a long-standing project with a strong track record of providing data on the number of spawners, smolt production, smolt survival, harvest of adults, adult fish passage, and stock-recruitment relationships, as well as physical data on water temperature and flow. The project provides important data from a variety of activities and methods in the watershed, along with analyses of related projects – such as habitat and flow improvements – aimed at enhancing natural production in the subbasin. The data generated by this project are critical for the adaptive management of salmon and steelhead in the subbasin.

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 responses to physical habitat or by 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 project(s) conducts for each implementation project. Given the regional leadership responsibilities of this M&E project, the ISRP is requesting this project, the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project, to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Umatilla basin. 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. Reviewers noted that Figure 1 in the proposal for Project 198903500 and Table 2 in the proposal for Project 198902401 could be incorporated and expanded in the summary. 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 projects in the Umatilla basin to assist your project in producing this summary (e.g., projects 198710001, 198902401, 198802200, 199000500), and encourage you to work closely with the implementation and monitoring projects to submit a coordinated response. 
   
   
2. SMART objectives. As presented, the objectives section is largely a list of ongoing or new tasks rather than SMART objectives. The ISRP asks the proponents to develop a complete set of SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for this project and incorporate and submit them in a revised proposal, which will provide complete project documentation for future reference when reporting project progress. 
   
   
3. Reach-specific survival of outmigrating smolts. It was unclear to the ISRP 1) what would be learned about survival of naturally spawned fish given that hatchery fish will be used as “surrogates”; 2) how the study will be designed to avoid confounding effects of multiple reaches on survival of groups, given that upstream groups will also be subjected to mortality in downstream segments; and 3) how the effects across years will be analyzed. As the data sets for these analyses are already available, these issues should be addressed in a revised proposal. 
   
   
4. Smolt per spawner ratios. Smolts per spawner is a basic measure of natural productivity for anadromous salmonids, but these data are not highlighted in the proposal. These are basic and important estimates that will inform implementation and management actions in the subbasin. If these are presented in annual reports, the ISRP recommends citing the reports and providing a brief summary in the revised proposal.
   
   In addition to the above requests, we identify several issues that will need to be addressed in the future. We welcome responses/feedback on these items during the response loop but understand that some of the issues may take longer to address than the two months allotted to the response loop. Specifically: 
   
   
5. Redd counts and smolt escapement relationships. The proponents provided Figure 3 which displays escapement versus redd counts. These appear reasonably well correlated for some of the overlapping time series, but there was also a period of years (2005-2013) when this relationship appeared weak. The explanation for this was not obvious, so there is diminished confidence in interpreting a firm relationship. Redd surveys may produce unreliable estimates of adult abundance and spatial distribution due to variability in detection probability owing to changes in river conditions and observers. Information about 1) the reliability of redd surveys as a method for quantifying spawner abundance and distribution, and 2) an explanation for the weak relationship between redd counts and abundance of spawners during 2005-2013 should be included in future annual reports to inform management actions in the subbasin. 
   
   
6. Screw trap data. Table 2 indicates that for several years a large portion of the rotary screw trap (RST) sampling period was not completed due to unsuitable river conditions. The potential for these incomplete sampling years continuing into the future could be a significant problem that may possibly worsen owing to increased climate variability. Thus, smolt trapping may not provide reliable estimates of emigrant run size. Moreover, the “pooling” method used to analyze data is not well justified and may also lead to bias as well as an underestimate of uncertainty. Finally, the confidence intervals of run size estimates for steelhead presented in Table 2 are unrealistically narrow, especially in years when almost half the trapping period was not sampled.
   
   A more advanced approach (Bonner and Schwarz 2011, https:github.com/csschwarz-stat-sfu-ca/BTSPAS) is recommended to avoid arbitrary pooling and provide more realistic estimates of uncertainty. Even then, it may not greatly improve results for years when a large portion of the sampling-year was missed. We recognize that the analytical effort to reanalyze the RST data is beyond the scope and timeline of a typical response to ISRP comments. We encourage the proponents to outline a plan for future analytical efforts to address these issues and perhaps commit to undertaking this effort and presenting them in future annual reports. 
   
   
7. Stock-recruitment relationships. One of the more useful elements of this project is that it supports development of a stock-recruitment relationship between escapement and smolt run size. There is some indication of a relationship alluded to in the confounding factors section of the proposal, but this key relationship is not shown in the proposal. For example, how do we know that the relationships between flow and smolt run size are not misleading (Figs. 1 and 2) and instead reflect an escapement to run-size relationship? A more rigorous quantitative analysis, based one estimating a Ricker stock-recruitment-covariate model, is required (e.g., log(smolts/escapement) = a +b*escapement +c*X, where X is a covariate like the flow metrics used in Fig's 1 and 2). Here too, we recognize the analytical effort may be beyond the timeline for a typical response loop. We encourage the proponents to explore such analyses as the project advances. 
   
   
8. Adapting management actions. The linkage between the ultimate goal of defining stock status, trends, and effectiveness of management actions and the tasks in the lists are implied but would benefit from direct connection. As an M&E project, the description of the adjustment process is described generally, i.e., whereby results of this project are reviewed by the CTUIR and multiple stakeholders via an oversight committee (UMMEOC) that meets monthly and prepares an Annual Operating Plan. The various projects also are guided by the River Vision and the First Foods approaches defined by CTUIR.
   
   However, The ISRP Comment #4 from the FY07-09 review highlighted an important point, it is not fully transparent how the many separate projects for the Umatilla River integrate to produce adaptive management decisions (see also Request 1 above for linking monitoring with implementation projects). The proponents state in each proposal that the UMMEOC is doing that integration, but the ISRP is not able to review those decisions to determine whether various projects are, indeed, making decisions based on science for the benefit of fish and wildlife in this subbasin and the Columbia River Basin as-a-whole. The results section also does not appear to address the most significant project element - which is the relationship between adult escapement (estimated by another study) and smolt run size (estimated from this study), though potential effects of flow (Figs. 1 and 2) are shown. In either case, the ISRP recommends including these analyses in future work plans and annual reports. 
   
   
9. Methods. In general, methods that are long-established by the proponents would benefit from a linkage to descriptions published in MonitoringResources.org, (e.g., deployment and operation of rotary screw traps for outmigrating smolts to estimate smolt production and survival). However, for new project objectives or innovative methods, additional description is warranted to be included in a revised proposal or in annual work plans and annual reports if they remain under development. Specifically: 
    
   1. Use of eDNA to estimate reach-specific relative abundances and species composition of salmonids. This study will require a careful design to ensure detection power and validation of accurate species identification, based on comparison with estimates by another method. Moreover, the study requires sufficient QA/QC protocols to eliminate false readings. The ISRP recognizes that the proponents may need to consult with experts to develop the design and analytical strategy. We recommend this issue be addressed in work plans and annual reports as the project moves forward.
   2. Sampling for 6PPD Quinone – This is a new objective, but it is unclear why this toxicant was selected for sampling over others that are also toxic to salmonids. Is it now of concern basinwide? Is the proposed investigation likely to be a range-finding analysis or an ongoing (expansive) monitoring effort depending on results? The ISRP seeks to understand why this is a concern in the Umatilla subbasin. Here too, the ISRP recommends this issue be addressed in work plans and annual reports as the project moves forward.
   3. For water temperature monitoring – The ISRP recommends including description of the kind of sonde or logger being deployed (is NIST-traceable, ONSTET®) sufficient for reproducibility? Are any critical issues if a logger/sonde is lost?
   4. For Stream Discharge Monitoring – Is coverage sufficient to account for the major tributaries within the subbasin? Would any additional sites provide needed information to complete a robust hydrological model?
   5. For monitoring redd locations - What sampling design was used to select the rotating panel of sites for monitoring redds? In previous reviews, the ISRP recommended a GRTS design. Regardless, the selection design or process should be included in future proposals, work plans, and annual reports. 
      
      
10. Benefits to fish and wildlife. The proponents have an opportunity to provide interpretation along with their results. For example, the results simply state that redd surveys have been completed and that there is minimal overlap in coverage among the different groups conducting the surveys. It was unclear how redd counts in some tributaries inform the potential for upper Mackay Creek to support steelhead. Juvenile electrofishing surveys might be a more repeatable and direct way of measuring tributary use and production potential. Interpretation of passage results is equally problematic. Results from informative telemetry studies are summarized, and it appears one of the lessons learned is to keep fishways clear to allow passage. Again, it seems hard to justify continuing to conduct telemetry given that this finding does not need further validation, unless there are data collected that are critical to program evaluation. There is no mention of specific tests to better define flow-passage relationships. The ISRP recommends the proponents provide some interpretation of the results in annual reports.

In Part: Deliverable 7 and Objective 3 do not meet scientific criteria due to lack of information that was requested by the ISRP. It does not appear that the proponents will actually be conducting work related to Deliverable 7 and Objective 3, even though they were included in the proposal. Rather, this work will be conducted by project 1984-024-01 (Umatilla Outmigration).

The proponents clarified their role in the Umatilla IMW project. They will coordinate with the major proponents of the IWM work, Projects 1984-024-01 (Umatilla Outmigration) and 2009-014-00 (Biomonitoring) and provide them status and trend data in support of the IMW project. The proponents of this project did not clearly indicate that they will be performing the habitat work called for in Deliverable 7 which states "Conduct habitat and related biological surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration activities." Therefore, Deliverable 7 is not scientifically justified for this project.

The ISRP requested more detail on Objective 3, "Assess salmonid diversity." This objective, which apparently is a part of the IMW study, reported no deliverables in the initial proposal and none were forthcoming in the response. With this lack of detail the ISRP is unable to evaluate the objective and so must deem it not to be justifiable for this project. The proponents referred the ISRP to the major proponents of the IMW project for the details of objectives 3 and 4. The details of these objectives and deliverable 7 were presented satisfactorily in the response of the proponents of project 1984-024-01 (Umatilla Outmigration).

The ISRP requested a more detailed summary of results. The proponent did not provide a summary but instead referred the ISRP to annual reports. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints imposed on the ISRP in their initial review of projects and in review of responses, we were unable to carefully examine the annual reports.

A number for issues need to be addressed by the proponents. The most important are: 1) a more detailed summary of results, especially since the last project review, needs to be provided, 2) the proponents should clearly explain this project’s role in the Integrated Model Watershed (IMW) work in the Umatilla Basin, 3) more detail on Objective 3 needs to be provided, and 4) study design, background, methods, metrics, and data analysis for accomplishing Objective 4 and Deliverable 7 need elaboration and clarification. The proposal would benefit from separation of status and trend monitoring objectives and IMW objectives. This project provides critical information about the natural production of steelhead and Chinook salmon in the Umatilla River basin. The data generated can be used to assess the effects of habitat restoration, flow restoration, and hatchery supplementation on populations of wild fish. In addition, it should provide important data by which to judge the new integrated hatchery supplementation strategies, whereby two different groups (Conservation and Harvest) of smolts are produced from natural vs. hatchery parents, respectively. This supplementation strategy may interact with flow and habitat restoration to create different benefits depending on these other two driving variables. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project is consistent with the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program and priority RM&E Objectives in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan, and addresses the natural production component of the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan which was developed collaboratively with ODFW. A Comprehensive RM&E plan was developed by CTUIR and its regional collaborators. The proponents propose to co-operate in the IMW project to evaluate effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in Umatilla basin tributaries, although their role is not entirely clear. Monitoring and evaluation of salmon status and trends in the Umatilla Basin certainly is well justified and the proponents have outlined a comprehensive approach for this effort. The objectives address important elements that should be entailed in an M&E program, including returns of hatchery and naturally spawning adult, outmigrant abundance and survival, tribal harvest, and passage upriver. The objectives and technical background information are comprehensive, and appear sound. Missing from the proposal, however, is monitoring trends in juvenile abundance. The proponents should explain why parr abundance won’t be measured. A confusing aspect of this proposal is that it apparently has components pertaining to routine, on-going status and trend monitoring, evaluation of habitat effectiveness under the IMW program, and other habitat effectiveness assessments (Deliverable 7). The ongoing status and trends monitoring is encompassed by Objectives 1 and 2, and meet scientific criteria. The IMW work apparently is divided among at least two projects, this one and Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival (1989-024-01). The Outmigration project appears to have the greatest responsibility for conduct of the IMW work. The proponents of this proposal should clearly explain this project’s role in the IMW work. What data will it collect? What analyses will it perform? Which of the deliverables in this proposal pertain to the IMW project? Is it just Deliverable 3? Why wasn’t the IMW work consolidated into one proposal? One challenging aspect of the IMW work is comparison of results from the various subbasins (reference and treatment), each of which has a suite of different flow, habitat, and supplementation treatments. As such, there is not a simple treatment-control structure to the IMW study design. Formal model selection might be used with the various response variables (e.g., smolt output) to separate the effects of these three main treatment factors among subbasins. The proponents should address this issue. Objective 3, “Assess salmonid diversity,” requires more detail. What are the Deliverables for Objective 3? What life histories will be assessed, and how will the assessment be done? The description of Objective 4 is “Quantify the benefits of habitat actions, flow augmentation, hatchery releases, and mainstem facility operations on adults returns, natural production and juvenile rearing,” with an accompanying Deliverable 7 which pertains to habitat effectiveness evaluations. This is an exceedingly broad and complex objective. Do the proponents intend on doing all of the work entailed in this objective by themselves and if so how will it be done? As the proposal now stands, it is unclear how Objective 4 will be accomplished. Deliverable 7, a component of Objective 4, is equally perplexing. It states “Conduct habitat and related biological surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration activities. The study design will be similar to that outlined in the Comprehensive M&E Plan but is currently begin refined through BPA project 2009-014-00 and will be coordinated with the Umatilla Intensively Monitored Watershed Project 1989-024-01.” The proponents provide no further explanation of how this deliverable will be achieved. If a study design exists, even in preliminary form, it should have been presented in the proposal (not simply referenced as the Comprehensive M&E plan) along with background, methods, metrics, and data analysis approaches. Objective 4 and Deliverable 7 are not scientifically justifiable because they lack these important elements. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management Based on its scale and duration, this project is likely to have produced significant results documenting status and trends of salmon in the Umatilla basin. The project has been ongoing since 1992, providing long-term data, but there was no mention of the main results from these data (only accomplishments were briefly listed), or whether these data had been published in peer-reviewed form. These results apparently are presented in other reports which the ISRP had no time to review. Analysis of the data for publication, and feedback from outside reviewers (i.e., outside of the region), can help refine ideas and analyses that feed back to improve monitoring and management. The results presented in the proposal pertain primarily to products of EDT analyses and trends in adult returns of hatchery and naturally produced steelhead, and naturally produced spring Chinook, but only through 2004. It would have been useful if the proponents had summarized, in a similar way, data and interpretation pertaining to each of the project objectives. What have the main results shown, and how are they being used in management? 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) This project links to many others – both the four projects within the Umatilla River subbasin, and others outside he Umatilla Basin. The project is an important link to others in the basin, since it provides information on natural production of salmon and steelhead, and data generated can be used to assess the current integrated hatchery strategy (although this was not presented as an objective). The proponents indirectly address emerging factors by continuing to monitor the status and trends of salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla Basin and thus provide information to assist managers in their assessments of emerging threats. A recent report has suggested that climate change will be an important emerging limiting factor for steelhead. This project will provide data to inform some of those ongoing changes, and how supplementation and habitat restoration may interact with it to affect steelhead and salmon. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The deliverables, methods, and metrics pertaining to status and trend monitoring were described very succinctly, are scientifically sound, and should yield suitable data for analysis. As commented on above, Objective 4 and Deliverable 7 lack sufficient detail to permit a scientific review. Their breadth and complexity require a more thorough explanation of study design, background, methods, metrics, and data analysis. This projects role in the IMW work should be clarified.

The key question of the proposal evaluation remains: given past and future efforts will this work provide useful and science-based M&E results? In general, the answer seems positive, if correctly focused, but despite a somewhat detailed response, the impression is that tasks are confused.

No progress reports were included, although some additional data were provided. Nonetheless, the key recruitment analyses and required basic evaluations of life-stage limiting factors remain unreported, at least in the response. Such analysis would point to the key elements of fisheries science and management, where actions may be derived based on stock status and trends. For example, Chilcote (2003) suggested wild steelhead in the Umatilla had recruits per spawner values that were lowered in the presence of hatchery steelhead. Do results of this project refute or agree with his relationships?

The sponsors agreed it is essential that the Council facilitate a targeted review of the Umatilla programs within two years. The investments in this watershed, particularly in flow augmentation, but also hatchery and habitat work, demand a prioritization that this response seems to largely dismiss. The management domains, critical uncertainties, and life history phase relationships presented in Figure 1 all relate to the same subbasin vision and goals, and represent a reasonable starting point for M&E, and from which clear testable hypotheses should be developed. It is difficult to suggest whether there is too much or not enough M&E present here until such review, and until available results are analyzed effectively, and in relation to the good work of the subbasin planning exercise.

The ISRP needs to see specific objectives with measurable endpoints to provide a science review. See also related comments on the suite of proposals from this subbasin: 198343600, 198802200, 198902700, 19871001, and 19871002. In summary, there is a need for a Umatilla program review, and within that, a need to define clearly the role of this project in directing management activities within the subbasin. Funding should be qualified on the ability to make that tie. This work is central to the whole effort of fisheries and habitat management in the subbasin. It needs to provide data and inform when to release water, when to truck, etc.