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.