We appreciate the proponents’ effort to provide thorough point-by-point responses that partially address all six topics. We requested a revised proposal as a component of the response, but it was not provided. Although the point-by-point response touches on all the topics, we provide a few suggestions below to address remaining issues that were not adequately covered in the response, including a recommendation to revise the proposal to incorporate information provided in the response.

In our preliminary review, we requested a response on the topics listed below. Our final comments and suggestions based on the response are provided after each topic:

1. Timelines for implementation objectives. Timelines for the implementation objectives were provided. We recommend that the proponents revise the proposal to add these timelines prior to contracting as a record for the additional implementation timelines and for future reference.

2. Methods for adult recruits-per-spawner. We suggest that the proponents should provide a brief description in the next annual report to clarify terms, definitions, and methods for adult abundance, spawner abundance, and adult recruit-per-spawner productivity specific to Imnaha River steelhead. The response includes an expanded description of the methods used to determine adult abundance and recruits-per-spawner at the MPG and population levels. It also clarifies that the tributary escapement estimates are not combined with the subbasinwide estimate because they “are inherently included in the subbasinwide estimate.” However, some confusion remains regarding definitions and methods for estimating adult abundance and spawner abundance. Based on the descriptions in Kinzer et. al. (2021), adult abundance and recruits-per-spawner estimates are for escapement of adults returning to the lower Imnaha River IPDS location. Therefore, the abundance estimate does not directly represent the number of natural origin spawners, nor does the estimate of recruits-per-spawner represent a direct estimate of spawner-to-spawner productivity. Productivity calculated from adult escapement data at the lower Imnaha River IPDS site may vary from estimates based on spawner abundance depending on annual variability in pre-spawn losses resulting from harvest, catch and release mortality, pre-spawn mortality, and natural origin broodstock removed. ICTRT population viability assessment criteria are based on natural origin spawner abundance, and productivity is based on spawner-to-spawner data. Development of approaches to convert the escapement-based estimates to spawner-based estimates should be considered, if possible, thus allowing for direct comparisons with ICTRT VSP criteria in the future.

3. Number and proportion of natural spawning hatchery fish. We appreciate the extensive presentation and timeline associated with estimates of pHOS and PNI, which further highlighted the critical need to finalize the methods for estimating pHOS and abundance of naturally spawning hatchery fish. Our primary issue with not estimating pHOS and natural spawning hatchery fish abundance was related to the influence of hatchery spawners on viability assessment of total spawner abundance and productivity. Our main concern relates to positive bias in productivity that results when a substantial number of hatchery fish spawn naturally but are not counted as parents and thus their offspring are attributed to natural origin spawners. The description of future plans and the timeline for developing methods for estimating pHOS directly addressed our request and provides a clear path forward. We are confused why pHOS values are used to calculate PNI estimates, yet they are not used to estimate total spawner abundance. We suggest that a brief description addressing this issue be included in the next annual report.

4. Life cycle model. The proponents effectively addressed our concerns, and we appreciate the willingness to participate in the AMIP Life Cycle Modeling workgroup and consider opportunities for model development. We believe the development of a full life cycle model would be very informative and have broad application because the Imnaha River steelhead dataset is one of the best available in the Snake River basin.

5. Project evaluation and adjustment. The response provides the requested clarification as well as an extensive list of adaptive decisions and changes that have resulted from past review and management adjustments. We suggest that the appropriate additional text be added to the proposal to provide a record of the additions.

6. M&E matrix support. We recognize the challenges of adding additional objectives within restricted budgets. The Council and Council staff have indicated that developing summaries and matrices of the types and locations of monitoring efforts across projects in major geographic areas would provide important information. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. The Fish and Wildlife Program may identify the specific elements and formats for these RM&E summaries and matrices in the near future. We encourage the proponents to participate in future efforts to characterize linkages between habitat implementation efforts and M&E as the expertise of this project would strengthen future coordinated M&E summaries. The project is providing valuable population level performance information that may be useful for assessing long-term population response to changes in habitat conditions.

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 ISRP thanks the proponents for providing a proposal that includes many of the essential elements requested and successfully integrates two projects—Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring and Imnaha River Steelhead Status Monitoring. The project has been underway for many years and addresses critical data gaps for smolt migration performance and viable salmonid population parameters, including adult abundance, productivity, life history diversity, and spatial structure. It provides population status and trend information for Imnaha steelhead MPG, one of the important steelhead populations in the mid-Columbia. It also provides critical information to a number of co-managers and recovery plans in the Columbia River Basin and informs VSP analysis. These data also are used to fulfill the FCRPS BiOp requirements. The 26-year data set is an important component of trend analysis for steelhead in the Snake River basin.

The project has achieved past objectives and provides critical data for a variety of assessments and management decision processes. The status and trends of Imnaha River steelhead are concerning with poor smolt-to-adult survival, low and declining abundance, and adult returns per spawner below 0.5 in most recent years. Thus, the information collected by the project is critical.

The goals are well described and provide clear qualitative desired outcomes. A comprehensive set of biological and implementation objectives along with monitoring questions are provided that directly support the goals. Most objectives are specific, measurable, and timebound, all of which are essential elements for SMART objectives.

In general, the methods are complete and scientifically sound. The integration of a diverse set of field and analytical methods functions well to address the extensive set of monitoring questions, the broad geographic area of study, and the diversity of environmental conditions. The ISRP commends the project for completing finalized protocols published in Monitoring Resources. There is the need for additional information in the objectives and methods sections that we detail at the end of this section.

The project is guided by an eight-step adaptive management decision process; however, details related to timelines, schedules, participants, and documentation are not provided.

M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. During the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021), we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored by this project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following points in a revised proposal and to provide a brief point-by-point response to explain how and where each issue is addressed in the revised proposal:

1. Timelines for implementation objectives. No timelines are provided for Objectives A.1, B-1, and B-2. These objectives address the important need to estimate number and proportion of natural spawning hatchery fish and improving Proportion Natural Influence (PNI) estimates. Please modify the proposal to add a start and finish timeline for each objective.

2. Methods for adult recruits-per-spawner. The abundance/productivity viability assessment approach developed by the ICTRT and now executed by NOAA as part of the five-year ESA status reviews requires spawner-to-spawner data. It is unclear how the basinwide and tributary escapement estimates are combined and used to produce the spawner-to-spawner estimates. Please describe this calculation more thoroughly in the Methods section of the proposal.

3. Number and proportion of natural spawning hatchery fish. The productivity analysis relies on the assumption that no hatchery fish are spawning naturally, an assumption that is likely to be false and can create unknown positive bias in the productivity estimates. The proposal properly highlights the need to estimate abundance and proportion of hatchery origin natural spawners but lacks details on how this will be accomplished and who will participate. Please modify the Methods section to describe the steps for developing and evaluating efficacy of the two options provided in the proposal. How will you facilitate, "further consideration and discussion among researchers and co-managers" to ensure success?

In the future, when hatchery spawner abundance estimates are available, the ISRP encourages the proponents to consider incorporation of the results of the NOAA-ODFW relative reproductive success study on Little Sheep Creek in the recruit-per-spawner analyses. The project can derive estimates in two ways: 1) aggregate hatchery and natural origin spawners to estimate a combined productivity, and 2) partition productivity for hatchery and natural fish utilizing hatchery origin spawner abundance and hatchery origin relative reproduction success based on Little Sheep Creek studies. This second approach was recommended by the ICTRT when population specific reproductive success information is available. Please explain if the proponents disagree with these analytical approaches or propose an alternative approach.

4. Life cycle model. The ISRP recommends the proponents synthesize their information and embark on developing a life cycle model. The accumulated data are impressive, and there is substantial potential for further in-depth analyses. The project should collaborate with others engaged in life cycle modeling to plan and develop the modeling efforts and include it as an objective in the revised proposal. Results should be presented in future annual reports and as part of the next major proposal. If the proponents already have perspectives or plans for developing a life cycle model, then please describe the plan in the response.

5. Project evaluation and adjustment. The proponents should revise the proposal and describe in more detail the process for evaluation and adaptive adjustment with information on known decision points, explicit schedules for evaluation and decision-making, and documentation of decisions and project changes.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

This proposal represents an integration of the Imnaha River Smolt Monitoring and the Imnaha River Steelhead Status Monitoring Projects. Both projects have been underway for many years. The project addresses critical data gaps for smolt migration and survival information as well as adult abundance, productivity, life history, and spatial structure. Information provided by the project is essential for assessing viability status for the ESA listed Imnaha MPG.

Two overarching goals clearly describe the qualitative desired outcomes for the project. The goals specify the need to provide status and trends information for sound scientific management of Imnaha River steelhead and to improve the projects effectiveness from lessons learned and application of sound adaptive management.

The proposal includes 9 biological objectives, 14 implementation objectives, and 10 key monitoring questions associated with goal one. There is strong connectivity and continuity between goals, objectives, and monitoring questions. The monitoring questions address critical information needs and uncertainties. The objectives are basically implementation objectives, calling for the completion of monitoring tasks. While this is a common characteristic of implementation objectives, the existing objectives could be improved by defining the necessary time frames, geographic representation, and extent. We strongly support the new work focused on increasing knowledge of hatchery steelhead spawner abundance and distribution to improve estimates of PNI.

The old objectives from the earlier projects seem to continue as the objectives of the new merged project. However, it would be helpful to clearly explain the integration of old and new objectives so that there is continuity over time.

Q2: Methods

The project uses a diverse set of field and analytical methods to address the extensive set of monitoring questions, broad geographic scope of the project, and diversity of habitats in the watershed. The project uses a creative mix of techniques, including juvenile traps, adult weirs, spawning ground surveys, scale analyses, temperature and flow monitoring, PIT tagging and array detections for data collection.

Detailed methods are presented for each of the monitoring questions. For the most part, the overall sample designs are well described and appropriate, but it is unclear how the information is synthesized to describe the overall status and trends of the Imnaha River steelhead population. The project is applying standard analytical protocols that provide probabilistic estimates. Basinwide adult abundance estimates are derived through linked model outputs from DABOM and STADEM, and tributary adult abundance estimates are derived from weir counts or PIT array observations. Juvenile abundance estimates are derived with use of the Bailey mark-recapture model with variability estimates from bootstrapping.

The project has assembled a large body of information since 1997, which is sufficiently rigorous to support a more detailed full life cycle assessment of the status and trends of this steelhead population. Have the proponents explored the potential development of a life cycle model for Imnaha River steelhead? Much can be gained from the analysis with a moderate investment of effort. The accumulated data are impressive, and there is substantial potential for further in-depth analyses. If a deeper dive into the data cannot be supported under project funds, the ISRP encourages the proponents to pursue other options, including collaboration with universities or other agencies with modeling expertise. The project has reached an important stage in its development. The ISRP recommends the proponents develop a plan to collaborate with partners to create a synthesis and life cycle model. The project should begin the synthesis and modeling efforts soon and try to complete the life cycle model during this funding period. The project can provide information on their approach and progress in annual report and the next proposal.

There is lack of clarity regarding methods for adult recruits-per-spawner estimation. In addition, there is no description of a timeline and process for developing and evaluating alternative approaches for estimating PNI. Specifics requests related to these issues are provided in the Overall Comment section of the review.

The ISRP commends the proponents for their investment in development of a centralized data management system and their sharing of information through the Streamnet Coordinated Assessment Database. In addition, the project has demonstrated a strong commitment to documenting methods with finalized protocol publications in Monitoring Resources for most methods.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project is guided by the Nez Perce Tribe's eight-step adaptive management decision process. The proponents indicate that they follow an eight-step process but do not describe the process for adaptive evaluation such as with regularly scheduled meetings, known decision points, and documentation of decisions. We recognize that such formal decisions may be made through a series of project, committee, and Nez Perce Tribal Council meetings, but the proposal does not provide information about this. The proponents should describe the process for adaptive evaluation with information on known decision points and explicit schedules for evaluation and decision-making.

The proponents provide some good examples of application of project adjustment, including expansion of smolt trapping time frames to achieve better estimates, assessing influence of spill on smolt survival, identifying poor quality PNI estimation methods and seeking alternatives, and actively meeting with co-managers to identify alternative management approaches to improving the abundance and productivity of salmon and steelhead in the Imnaha River subbasin. The proponents also describe numerous project changes that were implemented in response to past ISRP/ISAB review recommendations.

The proposal identifies habitat alteration, climate change, and predators as potential confounding factors. The proposal emphasizes the use of monitoring and hatchery production to address the effects of confounding factors on meeting mitigation goals. Other than increased use of hatcheries, the proponents do not identify any particular actions or strategies for dealing with climate change or increased abundance of predators. The proponents should identify more explicit strategies for dealing with recognized potential confounding factors and include that information in future annual reports.

Many of the answers to the objectives (stated as questions) in the Progress-to-Date section of the proposal present a logical development from the data collection to analyses and the systematic presentation is informative. The analyses of the data are mostly descriptive using graphs and linear regression (GLM is reported on later in the proposal). What is missing, however, is the final conclusion for each objective that explains how the steps lead to actually answering, as well as possible, the monitoring question. The text nicely leads the reader down a path but then stops short of getting to detailed progress on answering the question. To illustrate, question 5: What are the impacts of the hydropower system on Imnaha emigrant survival? The project estimates the difference in average survival rates, but is there any more than that? Similarly, question 8 about environmental and habitat features that may serve as limiting factors – a nice start is made on analyzing discharge and temperature data, but it seems more can be done. Given the long time series and wealth of data, a deeper dive into the analyses with a full life cycle model should be considered in order to extract even more information.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

 

The project has a strong record of meeting objectives and providing valuable information for assessing status and trends of steelhead abundance, productivity, life history diversity, and spatial structure. The proposal includes extensive time-series of data for each past objective. Some key findings that are concerning include 1) the decline in adult escapement from a high of 3,270 in 2011 to levels below 1,000 from 2017-2020, 2) smolt-to-adult return rates that are highly variable, generally poor, and well below the Council's goal of 2-6%, and 3) recruit-per-spawner estimates that have been below 1.0 since 2011, with only one brood year above O.5. Although SARs have declined, juvenile survival to Lower Granite Dam and McNary Dam have been relatively constant or slightly increasing. The project also determines the age structure, sex ratios, size at emigration and return, migration timing, spatial distribution within the basin, and potential limiting factors. The proponents describe these general trends but provide little interpretation about the implications for management actions or potential changes in status and trends.

While the proposed work has the potential to provide useful information on an important anadromous population in the Snake River basin, information that may be transferable (in some way to other subbasins), there are several major issues that need clarification and expansion. These issues include: 1. Better justification for Objective 3 2. Better explanation of the power analysis and data analysis 3. Justification for using different types of adult sampling methods and the rationale for their locations 4. Issues relating to comparability of data between tributaries whose adults were sampled using different techniques. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The purpose of the proposed work is to quantify, with a "high degree of precision," escapement and spatial distribution of steelhead in the Imnaha River. The steelhead population in the Imnaha is part of the Snake River steelhead ESU declared Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The proponents state that the Regional RM&E Collaboration strategies for the Snake River called for high precision estimates of adult abundance, with a coefficient of variation of 15% or less, "in at least one population per life history type per Major Population Group." This CV apparently was based on a recommendation by NOAA-Fisheries for monitoring VSP parameters (Crawford and Rumsey 2009, draft). In accordance with this strategy, the Coordinated Anadromous Workshop identified Imnaha steelhead as a "high precision priority population" so accurate estimates of escapement are needed. This is one of the more compelling justifications for the proposed work, but the proponents need to explain how the determination that the Imnaha was a priority population was made. However, the ISRP notes that CV (coefficient of variation) is not usually associated with precision of data, but with the variation associated with a state of nature. That is, salmon abundance across years has a CV, fall steelhead parr length has a CV. These are descriptions of the state of variation. They are not appropriate to determine confidence intervals. Crawford and Rumsey (2009) reference Carlile et al. (2008), which makes recommendations for coefficients of variation for estimates of total spawning escapement. The reference is to standard error of the estimate, not to variation in the population. More importantly, the statistical and biological basis for the recommendation in Carlile et al. (2008) has not been reviewed. The justification that the standard represents a realistic goal for planning because it corresponds to an acceptable risk (one year of one stock in six) of failing to label a stock of concern when warranted appears to be arbitrary. The observation that the standard has proven to be attainable for many escapement estimation studies does not mean that this is the appropriate data standard. Further justification for sample size targets is required. Further justification for expanding monitoring of A-run steelhead in the Imnaha includes: "The Imnaha River steelhead population is unique in the Snake River DPS in that it: 1) is physically small enough to conduct sampling of steelhead (mainstem flow and manageable number of spawning/rearing aggregates), 2) has a dendritic structure of spawning areas occurring across the entire range of elevations available to Snake basin DPS steelhead (spawning in areas from 1,000 feet up to 6,000 feet), and 3) has a supplementation program occurring in just two of its spawning aggregates." Also, "Steelhead redd counts are not physically possible throughout most the Imnaha River drainage due to inaccessibility and high turbidity". This justification appears meaningful. It seems consistent with the BiOp and the Imnaha Subbasin Plan. However, the justification could be stronger. The proposal makes the point that the work outlined is needed to fill a "critical data gap." A better justification would show how management of Imnaha steelhead could be improved if the new data were available. The proponents assert that monitoring the status of steelhead in individual tributaries within the Imnaha basin provides more detailed information on the status of the species than does an aggregate measure of abundance. Tributary population monitoring is needed to more effectively evaluate the efficacy of the Imnaha steelhead production program and the status and trends of the naturally-spawning steelhead population in the subbasin. Additionally, most estimates of adult steelhead abundance in Snake River tributaries occur at Lower Granite dam with apparently little information on steelhead escapement for subbasins and tributaries upstream of Lower Granite. This project proposes to provide this kind of information for the Imnaha subbasin and several of its tributaries. Considerable attention in the proposal is devoted to identifying general connections between this project and Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Imnaha Subbasin Plan, 2008 BiOp, PNAMP/CSMEP/AHSWG reports and recommendations by the ISRP, Council, NOAA- Fisheries and BPA. The project is consistent with RPAs in the BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and is complementary to other projects ongoing in the Snake River. It meets several needs identified in the Imnaha Subbasin Plan pertaining to adult summer steelhead escapement, distribution, and movement The proposed work will be similar to that of two others: a) ISEMP in its fast-track proposal has requested funding to install two PIT tag arrays in the Lower Imnaha River to assist this project in quantification of the distribution and abundance of steelhead in the Imnaha River basin, and b) the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan monitoring through the NPT and ODFW. Is the proposed work fully compatible with these projects? 2. Project History and Results This is new project. Information on Imnaha steelhead escapement and distribution gathered by previous projects is briefly summarized to provide background and context for this proposal. A version of this project was proposed as a new project in 2002 (#200205600) and received favorable reviews by the ISRP but was not funded. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Objectives were clearly described and seem appropriate. The goal of the project is to establish steelhead population status information in the Imnaha River Subbasin. More specific objectives were embedded in a series of questions with specific tasks identified as objectives such as 1) Installing and maintaining of floating weirs and PIT tag arrays, 2) Quantifying steelhead escapement and collecting fish condition, tag, and tissue data, and 3) Collection of annual stream temperature and discharge. Objective 3 could be better justified. What is the benefit of measuring temperature and discharge relative to the proposals objectives? How will measurement of these parameters refine escapement estimates? The proposal seems to concentrate mostly on monitoring adult returns. It appears that juvenile production will be monitored but that is not explained with any detail. The proponents should describe to what extent outmigrants will be monitored? Will the proposed work complete all that is needed for Imnaha steelhead monitoring? The description of the power analysis [as recommended by NOAA-Fisheries (Crawford and Rumsey 2009, draft)] and methods of data analysis were provided in some detail, but were not entirely satisfactory. Better explanation of power analysis assumptions is necessary and the data analysis section needs to be clarified. References such as Thomson (2002) were not given, although relevant material can be found in Chapter 9 of Thompson, 1992 (“Sampling,” Wiley Interscience). Some notation should be clarified. Note that V(Ratio) is simply V(Ntotal)/(Ntag)2 and define Nno-tag, perhaps in terms of Ntag and Ntotal. A major objective of the proposed work is to install floating weirs and PIT tag arrays to estimate adult escapement, gather life history data, and collect tissues for genetic analysis of population structure. One set of PIT tag arrays will be placed near the mouth of the Imnaha to estimate subbasin adult escapement and two others will be located on tributaries. Several weirs, including fixed and resistivity weirs are already in place on a number of Imnaha tributaries. The proponents contend that the suite of arrays and weirs (in place and proposed) will allow precise estimation of steelhead escapement. Funding for the PIT tag arrays at the Imnaha mouth was not requested in this proposal. Rather, the proponents are depending on funding of ISEMP's fast-track proposal (proposal 2003-017-000) which proposes to install the arrays. The proponents of this proposal actually provide a better justification for installation of the arrays than the ISEMP proposal. It is of interest that the proponents did not request funding for the array at the Imnaha mouth in this proposal, but rather they trust that this apparently important part of their work would be funded through another proposal. Are there contingencies in the event that the ISEMP proposal for the Imnaha is not funded? The proponents should justify why the work requires different types of weirs (floating, resistivity, fixed) as well as PIT tag arrays. They also should clearly present the rationale for location of the weirs and the tributary arrays. Could the proposed work, in coordination with ISEMP, present an opportunity for testing the efficacy of different types of sampling methods (PIT-tag arrays, floating, resistivity, fixed weirs) for estimating adult returns? If so, it should be one of the objectives with corresponding methods for testing and analysis. Can basinwide adult estimates be derived from the set of upstream arrays and weirs and compared to estimates from the arrays at the river mouth? A possible concern is comparability of data between tributaries when different methods, with different efficiencies for sampling returning adults (e.g., arrays, different types of weirs) are used. For example, some tests of resistivity weirs in Alaska have identified serious biases in detecting returning adults. How do the proponents plan to handle this potentially confounding issue? Will the efficiencies and biases of the different sampling techniques be directly evaluated in the proposed work? The proposed M&E work could provide important information on status and trends of adult steelhead abundance in the Imnaha River. Its designation as a high precision population suggests the importance of the steelhead run, although justification for this designation was not clearly presented in the proposal. It seems that the intent is to use the Imnaha as a sort of index stream for other Snake River subbasins and tributaries, but the proponents are not explicit about this use.

Qualification: Analyses using data collected under this proposal – whether conducted by the NPT, FPC, or others – should be increased and documented in future project progress reports and proposals.

Summary: The project provides valuable data for several other projects and management applications in the basin. The project rationale is clearly presented, adequately showing how the data collected and supplied by this project are applied to management issues and decisions. The history of project activities and the time series assembled are outlined in a general sense, at least insofar as what was done (rather than what was discovered).

In a previous ISRP review of this project, the ISRP wrote that 199701501 is not a research investigation but essentially a data collection project. That assessment remains accurate. The objectives are more accurately called sampling and data summary tasks designed to provide the data in a form suitable for a database. The objectives are adequate as far as they go, i.e., as strictly a monitoring project. The project itself is well conducted using appropriate sampling and population estimation methods. The methodologies for this sort of smolt trapping work are identified and referenced, and are adequately standardized.

Although the historical data generated in this project are presented in the proposal, the proponents indicate that interpretation of the data is probably someone else’s primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of the proposal. It is unclear, however, whose responsibility is it to analyze this valuable data.

There remain several opportunities for making more effective use of this 13-year data set. First, in a general sense, it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss the meaning of their results. The tables present the collected data very well. There appear to be some trends, and it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss those possible trends. Besides showing the accumulated data, presenting basic analyses (with narrative) of those data would be required to fulfill the criterion that the project “benefit fish and wildlife” as would interpreting the data and drawing conclusions about effects on the focal fish population and management implications. These data do not need to be dealt with in a routine manner. The results need not just be reported but can also be evaluated and interpreted.

For example, how might accuracy, precision, and bias be evaluated? Would short-term operation of a second trap (if cost-effective), or another approach, provide accuracy and precision estimates? It is not clear what biases may exist in this sampling regime. None of these issues are indicated as being addressed.

As for interpretation of the data collected, there is no research component, no hypotheses are listed, no indications are given of any research analysis designs. There are meaningful hypotheses that can be tested. For example, Roper and Scarnecchia (1999: CJFAS 56:939-946) develop and test several hypotheses around a 3-4 year data nearly identical in form but of much shorter duration than the impressive data set described in this proposal. There are also many other papers cited in that paper where hypotheses are tested with screw trap data on salmonid migrations. Such hypotheses might include an analysis of factors affecting run timing and duration, such as discharges, water temperatures, lunar phase, etc. It might also compare survival rates of early and late migrants. Such hypotheses testing and analyses would provide meaningful information for the Imnaha and be potentially applicable to other areas of the basin. A thorough analysis of this data would not only make full use of this valuable data set, it would show the limitations of the data and improve the sampling design for the future. This appears to be a missed opportunity; there are no refereed publications listed as having emanated from this project by the proponents.

The data are thus not being fully utilized beyond the good use by the FPC and by the LSRCP. The next proposal or project report should preferably describe the analyses conducted or proposed with this data whether through the NPT, FPC, or others.

Qualification: Analyses using data collected under this proposal – whether conducted by the NPT, FPC, or others – should be increased and documented in future project progress reports and proposals. Summary: The project provides valuable data for several other projects and management applications in the basin. The project rationale is clearly presented, adequately showing how the data collected and supplied by this project are applied to management issues and decisions. The history of project activities and the time series assembled are outlined in a general sense, at least insofar as what was done (rather than what was discovered). In a previous ISRP review of this project, the ISRP wrote that 199701501 is not a research investigation but essentially a data collection project. That assessment remains accurate. The objectives are more accurately called sampling and data summary tasks designed to provide the data in a form suitable for a database. The objectives are adequate as far as they go, i.e., as strictly a monitoring project. The project itself is well conducted using appropriate sampling and population estimation methods. The methodologies for this sort of smolt trapping work are identified and referenced, and are adequately standardized. Although the historical data generated in this project are presented in the proposal, the proponents indicate that interpretation of the data is probably someone else’s primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of the proposal. It is unclear, however, whose responsibility is it to analyze this valuable data. There remain several opportunities for making more effective use of this 13-year data set. First, in a general sense, it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss the meaning of their results. The tables present the collected data very well. There appear to be some trends, and it would be helpful for the proponents to discuss those possible trends. Besides showing the accumulated data, presenting basic analyses (with narrative) of those data would be required to fulfill the criterion that the project “benefit fish and wildlife” as would interpreting the data and drawing conclusions about effects on the focal fish population and management implications. These data do not need to be dealt with in a routine manner. The results need not just be reported but can also be evaluated and interpreted. For example, how might accuracy, precision, and bias be evaluated? Would short-term operation of a second trap (if cost-effective), or another approach, provide accuracy and precision estimates? It is not clear what biases may exist in this sampling regime. None of these issues are indicated as being addressed. As for interpretation of the data collected, there is no research component, no hypotheses are listed, no indications are given of any research analysis designs. There are meaningful hypotheses that can be tested. For example, Roper and Scarnecchia (1999: CJFAS 56:939-946) develop and test several hypotheses around a 3-4 year data nearly identical in form but of much shorter duration than the impressive data set described in this proposal. There are also many other papers cited in that paper where hypotheses are tested with screw trap data on salmonid migrations. Such hypotheses might include an analysis of factors affecting run timing and duration, such as discharges, water temperatures, lunar phase, etc. It might also compare survival rates of early and late migrants. Such hypotheses testing and analyses would provide meaningful information for the Imnaha and be potentially applicable to other areas of the basin. A thorough analysis of this data would not only make full use of this valuable data set, it would show the limitations of the data and improve the sampling design for the future. This appears to be a missed opportunity; there are no refereed publications listed as having emanated from this project by the proponents. The data are thus not being fully utilized beyond the good use by the FPC and by the LSRCP. The next proposal or project report should preferably describe the analyses conducted or proposed with this data whether through the NPT, FPC, or others.

100% of the hatchery steelhead released into the Imnaha River subbasin are marked with an adipose fin clip.  Fish production and marking is supported by the LSRCP.  We do not feel there is an association of RPA 50.7 with project 201003200 given our project is only quantifying adults escapement by origin.  Our project will use internal and external marks to determine fish origin of returning adults.

Viewed in the context that this is essentially a data collection project, the rationale for the presentation of tasks as objectives is understandable. The proposal as constructed must be viewed not as a research investigation per se but a data supply project. The response does an adequate job of showing how the data collected by this project are applied through other analyses and inform management decisions. Interpretation of the data is acknowledged by the presenters as probably someone else's primary responsibility, or is at least outside of the scope of this proposal. However, the sponsors should remain vigilant on staying current on how the information is being used in management decisions to ensure that they are collecting the highest priority data. The proposal is fundable on that basis.