The proponents present a project aimed at removing barriers and providing diversion screens that is generally well organized. The proposal describes the goals, objectives, and means to achieve proposed actions. The proponents (CTUIR) provide an overarching framework for this and other projects in the region tied to First Foods and Functional Touchstones. The ISRP found this to be an understandable and beneficial framework for this and related projects – we encourage its use more broadly.

The proponents have established productive partnerships with multiple groups and have successfully corrected or eliminated numerous fish passage barriers using agreed-upon approaches among cooperators. Fourteen additional projects are scheduled for the next funding period. These projects will take place in the Walla Walla, Umatilla, John Day, Grande Ronde and Tucannon subbasins. All are designed to improve access and survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmonids and resident bull trout. In future annual reports and work plans, the proponents need to provide information to address the following Conditions:

1. Explanation of objectives. Table 3 summarizes the project’s objectives (listed as actions and measures) along with a general response expected (i.e., “uplift”). The relationship between the actions and measures, however, is not obvious and appear to propose the same thing stated differently. For example, the first (action) objective is to remove 15 barriers while the second (measure) objective is to restore passage to 150 miles. These seem to just state the same thing with differing metrics (barriers v. miles). Further, the timeline lists 6 major projects. Presumedly, the 15 barrier removal projects are broken into these 6 projects, but that was not clear. The ISRP recommends clarifying these related forms of the objectives during the work plan, annual report, and contracting stages.
2. Details on procedures. Specific details on implementation objectives and methods used to correct fish passage and diversion screening problems are not described. While no formal response is needed, the ISRP recommends attaching a link or an appendix that briefly describes the standard operating procedures, best practices, or formal guidance and methods used for specific kinds of projects (implementation objectives) in the final work plan or next annual report. The proponents indicate that they follow state passage requirements and projects are selected from OR and WA priority lists, but the specific procedures and criteria are not provided.
3. 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 Walla Walla Sub-Basin Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation Project (200003900) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. We ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.
4. Database availability. The proponents appear to have a useful database, but it was not clear what part was or was not publicly available. The ISRP recommends providing a description of the database and its accessibility in the next annual report.
5. Climate change and prioritization. The proponents provided a list of climate change issues likely to affect the Walla Walla Subbasin and to recovery of imperiled species in this system. The CTUIR fish habitat project (199604601) also included a strong presentation on climate change, which indicates considerable thinking on this topic and how it will affect the subbasin. What was not clear, however, is how their climate change analysis is used to select specific project actions. Specifically, a high priority action under present or past conditions might be quite different from those under likely climate change scenarios. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue to refine their projections, coordinate with other projects, and adjust project activities accordingly.

 

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal aims to continue a suite of actions directed at providing passage in several subbasins through diversion dam removal or retrofit, screens, ditch consolidation, and culvert removal/improvement. The ISRP notes that the current project has taken a rather circuitous path to its present form (199601100 was combined with 200739600 and then split out again in the current project). The proponents clearly state the major impediments to the projects’ outcomes, such as water availability and habitat connectivity.

Historically, the project(s) has completed a good number of actions such as diversion dam removal or fish ladder retrofits, screen installations, ditch consolidations, and culvert removals/improvements.

Regarding the proposed objectives, Table 3 frames actions in terms of Goals, Quantitative Actions, Quantitative Measures, and Biological Function Uplift (i.e., response). The connection between action and measure appears to restate the same thing with differing metrics (see Condition 1 above). The proponents state that 10 passage impediments will be targeted based on OR and WA priority (candidate) lists and species benefiting (Table 4). A public process is described for determining final selection although specifics are not presented (see Condition 2 above).

Like most of the Walla Walla or CTUIR proposals, the overall, large-scale objectives are the primary focus, and they do a commendable job presenting and discussing these. They have a well-stated project goal which they reframe into a useful biological goal, i.e., "restore longitudinal connectivity, fish passage and habitat quantity.” Objectives of the project are to remove 15 passage barriers. Projects are systematically identified through plans, basin and subbasin plans and so on. There is a process they go through to do this, but for an outsider it is not clear which projects can be selected or the basis for the selection. In short, it is not clear how much of project selection is driven by opportunity, strategic need, or other criteria. Further details on the project selection process should be provided in a subsequent annual report.

Q2: Methods

Implementation methods are generally described, including specific project selection (see above). These are appropriate at a high level. Based on past implementation success, it appears that the proponents have a firm handle on how to undertake such projects and measure their implementation. While no formal response is needed, the ISRP recommends attaching a link or an appendix that covers some of the standard operating procedures, best practices, or formal guidance and methods used for the specific kinds of projects in the final work plan or next annual report (See Condition 2 above).

Federal (NMFS and USWFS) and state (WDFW and ODFW) partners participate with project staff to design culvert replacements, bridges, and structures that incorporate current NMFS and state (Oregon and Washington) fish passage standards. Recently, design criteria have also included elements that facilitate Pacific lamprey passage. Compliance and periodic monitoring are used to determine if the restoration actions are performing as expected. Methods being applied to improve passage appear to be sound based on the proponent’s expertise, collaboration with professionals from outside agencies, and upon the adherence to established fish passage criteria.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Biological M&E is provided through associated projects. As an implementation project, implementation is provided through contracting and compliance.

At a high level, improving or providing passage (identified as Quantitative Action and Measures Objectives) is expected to lead to benefits to fish and wildlife (identified as Biological Function Uplift). The realization of the “Uplift,” however, implies a sound M&E to observe and measure. As such, the M&E for implementation of barrier removal and improved access will be conducted within the activities of this project; however, the potential biological effects resulting from the project’s actions will be measured by a consolidated M&E project (200003900 and perhaps others). The ISRP recommends coordinating with the M&E project proponents to link specific activities in that project to what can be used to measure a response to passage improvements (see Condition 3. above)

Adaptive management is described at a general level – annual coordination and policy meetings provide the platform for decision making. Some recent trends indicate the outcome of adaptive thinking, although little detail on process or rationale is provided. For example, there appears to be a shift of focus into tributary or smaller systems. In future proposals, it would be useful to understand why proponents are shifting to tributary/smaller system work. Are these priority places, or is there less opportunity to work on mainstem/bigger system projects (or other rationale)?

Q4: Results — benefits to fish and wildlife

The primary obstacles this project addresses are access for fish and wildlife to water and habitat connectivity. The expected benefits (Biological Function Uplift) to anadromous species and resident bull trout are outlined in various ESA, Vision, and Accord documents.

From 2008 to the present the project has successfully removed or corrected 48 passage barriers and updated 14 irrigation screens and improved anadromous fish access to an estimated 725 miles of stream habitat all within the Ceded Lands of the CTUIR. Additionally, all the project deliverables mentioned in the 2013 Geographic Review, with one exception, have been completed or are in the planning and design stages.

Ultimately, documenting benefits to fish and wildlife requires sound M&E to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation objectives at achieving the predicted biological function uplift. The proponents describe a lengthy list of climate change issues on page 27; however, it is not clear how all the partners in the basin are looking ahead to incorporate climate change into management actions and decisions (see Condition 5 above). 

The sponsors and their local partners worked with three engineering firms to develop fish passage solutions for a six-mile long section of Mill Creek. This portion of the stream flows through the town of Walla Walla. For two miles, it passes through a concrete flume and approximately 800 feet of the flume is roofed over by parking lots and other structures. An additional 3.2 miles of the stream contains 263 concrete sills or channel stabilizers that are six feet wide and stretch across the stream. Some twelve different types of stream reaches were identified in this six-mile section, each with its own fish passage challenges. A physical model of parts of the flume was built and dye studies were performed to estimate how flow patterns and water velocities would react to physical modifications. In addition, a fish energetics model plus field calibrated HEC RAS and spreadsheet models were used to calculate hydraulics. Fish passage ability through the six mile section of Mill Creek at different flow rates and fish sizes by species was estimated via modeling. These results were used to help design modifications to the six-mile section of Mill Creek that would enhance fish passage. Cost estimates for each type of modification were also produced. Additionally, on-the-ground alterations using the suggested designs were made to a portion of the flume and also on a few concrete sills.

The purpose of two of the project’s deliverables is to continue to alter the flume and sills using the same type of modifications that were employed in the pilot work. We suggest that the sponsors install PIT tag detectors and other possible sensors in some of the modified portions of the flume to determine if resting areas and other portions of the modified structures are performing as expected. Corrections or alterations to existing designs that are based on model outputs cannot be made without empirical passage assessments. If the sponsors have pre-treatment fish passage success data under different flow regimes it may also be possible to perform BA or BACI analyses on the cumulative effects of all changes made in the six mile section of Mill Creek.

During the ISRP field visit it was also mentioned that the roofed portion of the Mill Creek flume was in poor condition. We hope that the sponsors and their partners can work with the City of Walla Walla to see if the roof can be removed and that during this process the stream channel in this part of the flume can be redesigned to enhance fish passage.

The Nursery Bridge Dam is another significant fish passage challenge in the Walla Walla subbasin. Currently high velocities at the dam are causing the streambed to undercut areas directly below the dam and are also reducing the effectiveness the dam’s fish ladder. One of the project’s deliverables calls for installing rough material immediately below the dam to reduce water velocities and simultaneously help with entry into the fish ladder. The river channel at the dam is restricted and water flows can also be impacted by irrigation withdrawals. The sponsors and their partners appear to have a holistic plan for this site which calls for widening the river channel below the dam which would reduce water velocities and installing three or more aquifer recharge sites to provide flows during the irrigation season. This appears to be a good approach to solving a significant fish passage problem and we hope that timely progress can be made on completing this plan.

Overall the project is making an important contribution to fish recovery in the Walla Walla Basin. The proposal, however, would have benefitted from additional detail about work elements, deliverables, past project activities, and information about project effectiveness.

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

Inadequate passage at irrigation diversion dams, canals and other passage barriers were identified as top imminent threats to salmonids in the Walla Walla subbasin plan. The objective of this project is to provide safe passage for migrating juvenile and adult salmonids by constructing and maintaining fish passage facilities. The sponsors state that important passage work has been accomplished in the subbasin but that additional problems still exist. Forums such as the Walla Walla Technical Work Group and Mill Creek Working Group identified and helped plan the work being proposed. Projects were prioritized based on their expected impacts on migrating fish. That is mainstem structures that all fish must pass and large irrigation diversion screens were considered high priority projects. In the current proposal, six out of the eight proposed passage projects will help anadromous fish reach portions of upper Mill Creek. The significance of this project to the fish resources of the Walla Walla Basin is clear. The project addresses a mortality factor identified as a key limiting factor in most of the restoration plans that have been developed for this watershed.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Results and accomplishments of the project are presented as a list of actions that have been completed. For example, under this project two decommissioned irrigation diversion dams have been removed, six new fish ladders have been installed at low head dams, modern fish screens have been installed at seven irrigation diversions, three irrigation ditch consolidations have been completed which helped reduce the number of passage facilities needed, and alterations to a concrete channel located in lower Mill Creek were made. However, there is insufficient information provided to convey the relative significance of these projects. More detailed information on project accomplishments should be included in the proposal.

Radio telemetry studies on spring Chinook from 2004-2008 were performed to document adult passage in the Walla Walla River. Results from this work were used to make improvements to passage facilities at Hofer, Mill Creek, Gose Street, and the Nursery Bridge Dam. So there is some element of adaptive management incorporated into the project. However, the lack of project-specific effectiveness evaluations limits the availability of information that is required to adaptively improve project effectiveness. For example, even though a project might meet NOAA fish passage standards was there some specific feature at the site that required some modifications? Is there a central site where past experience is stored so that future learning can take place? Some enhancement in project-level effectiveness monitoring would be worth considering.

Evaluation of Results

The Walla Walla River has been heavily diverted for irrigation purposes. Two major irrigation diversions, one at river mile 36 and another at river mile 47 along with numerous smaller diversions exist in the subbasin. These structures played a significant role in the extirpation of spring Chinook and in the reduction of summer steelhead and Bull Trout abundance. Migrating juveniles were lost down irrigation canals and injured by impingement on inappropriate fish screens. Adults were prevented from making upstream migrations either by a complete absence of water or by impassable barriers. Numerous passage improvements have been made. The effectiveness of individual projects, however, has not been evaluated. Visual inspections are made to see if adults or juveniles show any reluctance to moving through specific passage structures but are not done in a quantifiable manner. However, the sponsors have performed studies that show mean travel time of spring Chinook from McNary Dam to the Nursery Bridge Dam has decreased from 30 days in 2000 to 18 days. SAR values for spring Chinook have also gone up a bit since 2004 and the successful re-introduction of spring Chinook into the South Fork of the Walla Walla and into Mill Creek indicate biological benefits have been derived from the passage work that has occurred in the subbasin.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult Passage Improvement project is directly linked to the Walla Walla Fish Operations and Maintenance and the Walla Walla Basinwide Tributary Passage and Flow projects. The juvenile and adult passage project provides support for the installation of screens and passage structures at irrigation diversion sites, dams, and other sites where fish passage has been impaired. The operation and maintenance project handles the O&M for these installations while the basinwide tributary passage project focuses on flow augmentation. These projects have made significant progress towards addressing fish impacts related to the irrigation system in the Walla Walla Basin.

Project identification is done by the Walla Walla Technical Work Group, the Mill Creek Working Group, and other interested entities. Private engineering firms design and construct passage improvements, and these plans are reviewed by the sponsors (CTUIR) along with WDFW, ODFW, NMFS, and the USFWS. PNNL personnel are engaged by the project to inspect newly completed projects to determine if they are operating under accepted NMFS criteria. The project also provides cost share funds for fish passage projects led by the Army Corps of Engineers, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, NOAA, Milton-Freewater Water Control District, and the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council.

Additionally, the project is linked to the Walla Walla Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Project (BPA Project Number 2000-039-00) which performs basinwide assessments of fish response to habitat improvement efforts. This Monitoring and Evaluation project appears to be collecting comprehensive data on steelhead and spring Chinook populations in the river and some of the results from this study are presented. VSP parameters appear to be trending upwards. However, it is not possible to determine the role improved passage survival is playing in this trend. Assessments of effectiveness of the screens and passage structures installed under this program appear to be limited to behavior displayed by radio-tagged adult fish near passage structures and casual observations of fish behavior around project sites. A more rigorous assessment of the efficacy of the structures should be considered.

No emerging limiting factors were presented. It is clear however, that climate change and possible shifts in irrigation water use will impact fish passage. How to accommodate these changes in flow regimes and water temperature will need to be considered in future fish passage planning, design, and construction.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Ten project deliverables are presented. Eight of them are for specific fish passage projects. Many of these have been designed and are ready for construction. One of the remaining deliverables is for cost-sharing. In this case funds from the project will be provided to other subbasin groups that are performing fish passage work. Previous examples of cost sharing include projects on the Touchet, Garrison Creek, Spring Creek, and at Gose Street. The final deliverable pays PNNL personnel to perform post-project evaluations to ensure that newly completed projects meet NOAA fish passage criteria. The work elements and deliverables for this project seem appropriate. They are primarily related to the construction of new screens or fish ladders or modification of existing facilities. However, the detail about each work element and deliverable was quite brief. Additional detail or links to information about each planned project would have been useful in reviewing the proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No RM&E protocols were listed in the proposal.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The ISRP’s qualification and comments can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews. The ISRP is not requesting a response.

Studies to quantitatively measure the action effectiveness of specific passage projects need to be developed and implemented.

The sponsors and their local partners worked with three engineering firms to develop fish passage solutions for a six-mile long section of Mill Creek. This portion of the stream flows through the town of Walla Walla. For two miles, it passes through a concrete flume and approximately 800 feet of the flume is roofed over by parking lots and other structures. An additional 3.2 miles of the stream contains 263 concrete sills or channel stabilizers that are six feet wide and stretch across the stream. Some twelve different types of stream reaches were identified in this six-mile section, each with its own fish passage challenges. A physical model of parts of the flume was built and dye studies were performed to estimate how flow patterns and water velocities would react to physical modifications. In addition, a fish energetics model plus field calibrated HEC RAS and spreadsheet models were used to calculate hydraulics. Fish passage ability through the six mile section of Mill Creek at different flow rates and fish sizes by species was estimated via modeling. These results were used to help design modifications to the six-mile section of Mill Creek that would enhance fish passage. Cost estimates for each type of modification were also produced. Additionally, on-the-ground alterations using the suggested designs were made to a portion of the flume and also on a few concrete sills.

The purpose of two of the project’s deliverables is to continue to alter the flume and sills using the same type of modifications that were employed in the pilot work. We suggest that the sponsors install PIT tag detectors and other possible sensors in some of the modified portions of the flume to determine if resting areas and other portions of the modified structures are performing as expected. Corrections or alterations to existing designs that are based on model outputs cannot be made without empirical passage assessments. If the sponsors have pre-treatment fish passage success data under different flow regimes it may also be possible to perform BA or BACI analyses on the cumulative effects of all changes made in the six mile section of Mill Creek.

During the ISRP field visit it was also mentioned that the roofed portion of the Mill Creek flume was in poor condition. We hope that the sponsors and their partners can work with the City of Walla Walla to see if the roof can be removed and that during this process the stream channel in this part of the flume can be redesigned to enhance fish passage.

The Nursery Bridge Dam is another significant fish passage challenge in the Walla Walla subbasin. Currently high velocities at the dam are causing the streambed to undercut areas directly below the dam and are also reducing the effectiveness the dam’s fish ladder. One of the project’s deliverables calls for installing rough material immediately below the dam to reduce water velocities and simultaneously help with entry into the fish ladder. The river channel at the dam is restricted and water flows can also be impacted by irrigation withdrawals. The sponsors and their partners appear to have a holistic plan for this site which calls for widening the river channel below the dam which would reduce water velocities and installing three or more aquifer recharge sites to provide flows during the irrigation season. This appears to be a good approach to solving a significant fish passage problem and we hope that timely progress can be made on completing this plan.

Overall the project is making an important contribution to fish recovery in the Walla Walla Basin. The proposal, however, would have benefitted from additional detail about work elements, deliverables, past project activities, and information about project effectiveness.

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

Inadequate passage at irrigation diversion dams, canals and other passage barriers were identified as top imminent threats to salmonids in the Walla Walla subbasin plan. The objective of this project is to provide safe passage for migrating juvenile and adult salmonids by constructing and maintaining fish passage facilities. The sponsors state that important passage work has been accomplished in the subbasin but that additional problems still exist. Forums such as the Walla Walla Technical Work Group and Mill Creek Working Group identified and helped plan the work being proposed. Projects were prioritized based on their expected impacts on migrating fish. That is mainstem structures that all fish must pass and large irrigation diversion screens were considered high priority projects. In the current proposal, six out of the eight proposed passage projects will help anadromous fish reach portions of upper Mill Creek. The significance of this project to the fish resources of the Walla Walla Basin is clear. The project addresses a mortality factor identified as a key limiting factor in most of the restoration plans that have been developed for this watershed.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Results and accomplishments of the project are presented as a list of actions that have been completed. For example, under this project two decommissioned irrigation diversion dams have been removed, six new fish ladders have been installed at low head dams, modern fish screens have been installed at seven irrigation diversions, three irrigation ditch consolidations have been completed which helped reduce the number of passage facilities needed, and alterations to a concrete channel located in lower Mill Creek were made. However, there is insufficient information provided to convey the relative significance of these projects. More detailed information on project accomplishments should be included in the proposal.

Radio telemetry studies on spring Chinook from 2004-2008 were performed to document adult passage in the Walla Walla River. Results from this work were used to make improvements to passage facilities at Hofer, Mill Creek, Gose Street, and the Nursery Bridge Dam. So there is some element of adaptive management incorporated into the project. However, the lack of project-specific effectiveness evaluations limits the availability of information that is required to adaptively improve project effectiveness. For example, even though a project might meet NOAA fish passage standards was there some specific feature at the site that required some modifications? Is there a central site where past experience is stored so that future learning can take place? Some enhancement in project-level effectiveness monitoring would be worth considering.

Evaluation of Results

The Walla Walla River has been heavily diverted for irrigation purposes. Two major irrigation diversions, one at river mile 36 and another at river mile 47 along with numerous smaller diversions exist in the subbasin. These structures played a significant role in the extirpation of spring Chinook and in the reduction of summer steelhead and Bull Trout abundance. Migrating juveniles were lost down irrigation canals and injured by impingement on inappropriate fish screens. Adults were prevented from making upstream migrations either by a complete absence of water or by impassable barriers. Numerous passage improvements have been made. The effectiveness of individual projects, however, has not been evaluated. Visual inspections are made to see if adults or juveniles show any reluctance to moving through specific passage structures but are not done in a quantifiable manner. However, the sponsors have performed studies that show mean travel time of spring Chinook from McNary Dam to the Nursery Bridge Dam has decreased from 30 days in 2000 to 18 days. SAR values for spring Chinook have also gone up a bit since 2004 and the successful re-introduction of spring Chinook into the South Fork of the Walla Walla and into Mill Creek indicate biological benefits have been derived from the passage work that has occurred in the subbasin.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult Passage Improvement project is directly linked to the Walla Walla Fish Operations and Maintenance and the Walla Walla Basinwide Tributary Passage and Flow projects. The juvenile and adult passage project provides support for the installation of screens and passage structures at irrigation diversion sites, dams, and other sites where fish passage has been impaired. The operation and maintenance project handles the O&M for these installations while the basinwide tributary passage project focuses on flow augmentation. These projects have made significant progress towards addressing fish impacts related to the irrigation system in the Walla Walla Basin.

Project identification is done by the Walla Walla Technical Work Group, the Mill Creek Working Group, and other interested entities. Private engineering firms design and construct passage improvements, and these plans are reviewed by the sponsors (CTUIR) along with WDFW, ODFW, NMFS, and the USFWS. PNNL personnel are engaged by the project to inspect newly completed projects to determine if they are operating under accepted NMFS criteria. The project also provides cost share funds for fish passage projects led by the Army Corps of Engineers, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, NOAA, Milton-Freewater Water Control District, and the Walla Walla Basin Watershed Council.

Additionally, the project is linked to the Walla Walla Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Project (BPA Project Number 2000-039-00) which performs basinwide assessments of fish response to habitat improvement efforts. This Monitoring and Evaluation project appears to be collecting comprehensive data on steelhead and spring Chinook populations in the river and some of the results from this study are presented. VSP parameters appear to be trending upwards. However, it is not possible to determine the role improved passage survival is playing in this trend. Assessments of effectiveness of the screens and passage structures installed under this program appear to be limited to behavior displayed by radio-tagged adult fish near passage structures and casual observations of fish behavior around project sites. A more rigorous assessment of the efficacy of the structures should be considered.

No emerging limiting factors were presented. It is clear however, that climate change and possible shifts in irrigation water use will impact fish passage. How to accommodate these changes in flow regimes and water temperature will need to be considered in future fish passage planning, design, and construction.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Ten project deliverables are presented. Eight of them are for specific fish passage projects. Many of these have been designed and are ready for construction. One of the remaining deliverables is for cost-sharing. In this case funds from the project will be provided to other subbasin groups that are performing fish passage work. Previous examples of cost sharing include projects on the Touchet, Garrison Creek, Spring Creek, and at Gose Street. The final deliverable pays PNNL personnel to perform post-project evaluations to ensure that newly completed projects meet NOAA fish passage criteria. The work elements and deliverables for this project seem appropriate. They are primarily related to the construction of new screens or fish ladders or modification of existing facilities. However, the detail about each work element and deliverable was quite brief. Additional detail or links to information about each planned project would have been useful in reviewing the proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No RM&E protocols were listed in the proposal.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The ISRP’s qualification and comments can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews. The ISRP is not requesting a response.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:35:37 AM.

This is one of three closely linked passage proposals in the Walla Walla subbasin. Most of the proposal is well done. The proposal would be improved by reporting results from the subbasin level M&E project in summary format. The project needs to make the connection to biological data collected in the M&E project. This was a similar concern with previous ISRP reviews, and while there has been some improvement, it should be clear by now that projects must indicate results of past efforts clearly, particularly after 10 years of efforts. The efforts and results must be linked to subbasin plans, and this was not a strong area of the proposal. What data will be collected by other entities to evaluate success (or failure)? What are the key reference points from this data that will affect management decisions?