The response improves the proposal in some areas: good descriptions are provided of the live capture study and its educational components, and the metrics section is expanded. However, overall the amount of detail provided in the response is excessive, detracting from the goal of a concise and compelling description of the proposed project and making it difficult to clearly understand the project. The proposal should be a stand-alone document that clearly and concisely justifies the project. It should contain all relevant information sufficient for a complete scientific and technical review without requiring reference to external documents, past proposals, or previous reviews.

Qualification: The proponents are requested to revise and resubmit their proposal for ISRP review. The proposal should be updated incorporating information provided in the response and in cited reports, to provide a concise stand-alone document with sufficient detail for reviewers to evaluate its scientific and technical merits.

The revised proposal should:

(1) Synthesize project accomplishments in an evaluative manner rather than listing a number of project reports.
(2) Evaluate the extent to which specific project objectives are being met.
(3) Summarize the adaptive management process of making changes to sampling of fish and tribal fishers, rather than simply listing formulas.
(4) Reconcile the description of the data situation with earlier data statements.
(5) Justify the choice of selective fishery techniques.

The proposal is rich in detail about the context and history of the harvest monitoring efforts. It is weaker in detail about statistical sampling and estimation methods used, how these have changed, and why. The proposal needs to be stronger in documenting specific results of past work and the extent to which project objectives are being met. A response is requested on: 1. Project accomplishments: more information is needed on what the project has accomplished to date and the extent to which project objectives are being met. 2. Adaptive management: more detail is needed, supported by data and examples, on how the project has adaptively managed its approach in response to changing conditions. 3. Methods: clarification is needed on the methods to be used to address each of the three specific problems the proposed work is designed to address. More detail is needed on methods of sampling surveys, estimation and the conduct of the live capture pilot study. 4. Education: a description is needed of the educational component (regarding mark-selective fishing techniques) of the live capture pilot project. 5. Metrics: detail is needed on metrics to be used for testing live capture methods and implementing the harvest management plan. 6. Data: the proposal indicates that the data are not electronically available. A description of the data situation and an explanation of why data are not in electronic format are needed. What problems exist with previously collected harvest data, and what is the plan to solve the problems? 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The stated goal of this project is to develop and implement a biologically sound harvest monitoring program through the collection of credible and accurate catch data to support harvest strategies consistent with treaty reserved fishing rights. The proposal provides a detailed description of the significance of Nez Perce tribal harvest management to regional programs and agreements, such as U.S. v. Oregon. It describes the large geographic area within which the tribe holds treaty fishing rights and fishing locations. The Tribe is responsible for developing biologically and legally sound harvest plans for both artificial propagation and natural stocks that comport with ESA protections. The project components and objectives form the basis for improved harvest management and therefore are significant to regional programs. A reasonable technical background is presented. The harvest monitoring project is described as a way to quantitatively evaluate progress toward meeting basin and subbasin harvest objectives and to determine tributary adult abundance. It ties these evaluations to both the U.S. v. Oregon and FCRPS BiOp processes. The U.S. v. Oregon process includes performance measures to monitor progress toward rebuilding and track trends in the status of indicator stocks. This project provides base information for used by the U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory Committee to complete annual run reconstruction and forecasting for upriver spring Chinook. The proposal also ties the project to the Snake Basin Harvest Forum with a long-term goal of developing an integrative management system for tributary fisheries and harvest management in the Snake River Basin. A short-term goal is better coordination and harvest allocation. For some reason the project title does not include the Salmon River, but harvest is monitored there also. The project is related to specific objectives of subbasin plans. A good problem statement is provided, accompanied by a list three specific problems the proposed work is designed to address: 1. improving the timing and accuracy of harvest estimates; 2. accounting for harvest impacts on ESA-listed Snake River salmon and steelhead; and 3. increasing the Tribe’s capacity to catch its full share of salmon and steelhead. However, clarification is needed on specific methods proposed to address each problem. The proposal has three objectives each including specific deliverables: 1. plan anadromous harvest strategies and harvest monitoring appropriate for treaty fishing; 2. implement harvest monitoring plan; and 3. design and implement a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of using “live catch” methods. The project appears to represent the primary source of funding for Nez Perce fisheries management. It is surprising that objective 2 is not already part of the management program. The project collects, analyzes, and reports catch data pursuant to pre-planned statistical sampling designs and procedures to assure the conduct of biologically sound harvest strategies for Nez Perce treaty fisheries that may affect ESA listed species. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The project’s financial history is summarized, with a brief statement that funding has been relatively static over time. Project results in the form of harvest management plans and harvest enumeration are described. The Nez Perce Harvest Division produced one of the first long-term tribal resource management plans in the Snake Basin. The project has developed harvest plans and estimates of hatchery and wild fish in past years. Various data collection methods are summarized. The proposal states that the project is learning from its experience and improving accuracy and precision of harvest estimates. “Adaptive management” describes actions taken to improve project efficiency over time, including changing survey methods of harvest, statistical estimates of harvest to address data gaps, the development of sampling techniques that adapt to changing fishing areas (with a long-term goal of standardized Basinwide sampling of harvest and effort) and an assessment over time of the performance of estimators. The material is very briefly described and lacks sufficient data and examples. Further details of project accomplishments are provided in the annual reports but not summarized in the proposal. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proposal provides a detailed description of the project’s relationship to other projects, subbasin plans and regional agreements. Accurate harvest and escapement estimates of hatchery and wild salmon (especially ESA listed species) are important. The investigators seem to be well qualified to make improvements in harvest estimation, as proposed. A brief but adequate description of limiting factors and the project’s approach to them is presented. The ISRP is aware of tribal cultural issues regarding tagging and marking fish. It is therefore pleasing that the Nez Perce Tribe managers are willing to evaluate live capture methods that could lead to mark-selective fishing by tribal members. As part of this evaluation, it will be important to include an educational component to explain the benefits of mark-selective fishing techniques in increasing harvest of hatchery fish and reducing straying of hatchery fish. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Deliverables are described in adequate detail under each project objective. Metrics are limited to harvest metrics such as CPUE and abundance. None are listed for testing live capture methods or implementing the harvest management plan. Five RM&E work elements are listed, all directed at data collection and management, data dissemination, and data analysis and interpretation. The proposal indicates that the data are not electronically available, although it is not clear why this would be the case. The project takes a reasonable step-wise approach to harvest management: 1. develop fishery plans and associated harvest monitoring plans for Zone 6 and Snake River tributaries; 2. determine potential run sizes preseason and update those numbers in-season as fishery managers acquire better information on the actual run; 3. prepare annual and long-term fishery plans using best available information on the target populations; and 4. implement harvest monitoring methodology and disseminate data. Some detail on methods is provided in the description of each deliverable; the survey methods under “study designs” are listed but not described. Regarding the pilot study on the use of live capture fishing methods, more detail is needed on how the study will be conducted.

The response provides thorough and detailed information on the statistical basis and operational details of the harvest monitoring program. The sponsors have provided numerous details in their response, including outlines of the statistical methods that will be used to estimate variance of catch rates. The program seems to be in the hands of a very qualified statistician. Primarily extracted from the sponsor's annual report (Statler et al. 2006, submitted after the ISRP review), the response adequately addresses ISRP comments.