Additional justification for the fast track elements (PIT tag arrays) is requested as a response during the fast track response loop. A written response to ISRP questions and presentation on the core ISEMP project is requested before or during the categorical RME review during the summer of 2010. This is an ambitious, broad-scale project that is producing useful information for managers on the status and trends of habitat and fish populations in the mid- and upper-Columbia. Additionally, the work is addressing general issues of basic importance, such as how many sites are needed in a watershed to track habitat improvements over time, and habitat restoration actions resulting in increased focal species populations. The ISRP recommends that the fast track components of this project be completed during this fast track review, but we find the overall proposal requires a comprehensive evaluation before or during the RM&E Categorical Review, after the ISRP has seen the larger RME Regional Plan. A response to justify the PIT tag arrays should provide evidence that they will provide data for estimating the intended response variables. PIT tag arrays may not provide the key response variable in habitat evaluations. Smolt recruitment per spawner as a function of the number of spawners is the key variable, pre and post, and compared to external controls. Will arrays provide this? If they do, will they provide this information with the accuracy required? How many sites are required? Are more needed? Does the data to date suggest the recruitment limitation is elsewhere? What does the data collected to date say about these questions? The comprehensive review and evaluation of ISEMP should include a written response and presentation to the ISRP. The written response and presentation should include analyses of data collected to date on status and trends of fish and habitat, and effectiveness of restoration actions in the subbasins they have been studying; the locations of the proposed PIT tag array should be more completely explained and justified. Other objectives, methods, procedures, and results to date need to be more completely clarified. In presenting these results they should demonstrate, as thoroughly as possible, how the monitoring methods and analyses they are employing are superior to other, more conventional methods. This will be especially important for the IMW sites. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The project description adequately justifies the various elements of the work. A strong case is made for each of the efforts in the John Day, Salmon, Entiat, and Methow subbasins. Detailed descriptions of some of the approaches are repeated in Section F, making for a long proposal, but in general this project is well justified, important to the mid- and upper-Columbia, and well tied in (albeit complexly) with other restoration M&E efforts. The current proposal requests funding for installation of PIT-tag detection antenna arrays in Snake River tributaries and initiation of reach scale habitat monitoring in the Methow and Entiat River. The reach scale work is justified, but better justification for installation of the PIT-tag arrays is needed, as explained below. The proposal addresses several RPAs in the BiOp. ISEMP is linked to many projects in the Columbia River Basin. It makes use of an extensive amount of data collected by agencies and tribes and works in close cooperation with co-managers in the Basin. 2. Project History and Results Project results are summarized in a series of matrices for each fiscal year at each major watershed, including major accomplishments and links to progress reports. Although the ISRP prefers not to be referred to hyperlinked reports, the broad scope of this project and the large number of reports and papers justifies this approach. Most of the material is available on the ISEMP website. In general, the project has succeeded in achieving the majority of its objectives to date. The accomplishments listed in the proposal pertain primarily to monitoring protocol development and testing as well as other work related to ISEMP’s goals. A summary should have been included. A significant amount of data has been collected on status and trends of fish and habitat, and effectiveness of restoration actions in the course of protocol development and testing. Analysis of these data would be interesting and informative, and should be presented. One test of the effectiveness of ISEMP is whether its methods and means of data analysis prove superior to current methods for status and trend monitoring employed in the Basin with the understanding that there is overlap between the two. In addition to presenting results and analysis of data collected to this point, the proponents should compare their results to those obtained by other, more traditional, methods. For example, are ISEMP's escapement estimates for a particular river, for example using PIT-tag detector arrays, significantly more accurate than estimates obtained from weir or redd count data in the same river? 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods With regard to the expanded sites in the Entiat and Methow subbasins, the GRTS sites have not yet been selected. The approach to site selection is a proven one and should be successful; however, the proposal does not state what will happen if there are landowner access issues. The ISRP will be interested in the interpretation of the macroinvertebrate sampling results, as macroinvertebrates tend to be quite variable and difficult to relate to experimental restoration. Many of the field techniques are described in various ISEMP sampling protocol reports and were not repeated in the proposal. The first objective pertains to installation of PIT-tag detector arrays in several tributaries of the Snake River. These arrays are in addition to numerous other arrays already present in Snake River tributaries. The proponents present a strong argument that arrays have many advantages in terms of accuracy and precision relative to more conventional techniques for assessing escapement and other adult parameters, and can be used to test many hypotheses and assumptions of interest to co-managers. The question is whether the proposed set of arrays is necessary and that depends on the purpose of the installations. If the purpose is to further test arrays and improve methods for analysis and dissemination of array data, why aren't the currently operational arrays sufficient to accomplish these tasks? If, on the other hand, the purpose is to install arrays just to monitor MPGs or some other specific management function, then this should be better justified in relation to stated ISEMP goals which appear to be directed primarily toward establishing and testing monitoring methodologies. Although this is a fast-track proposal, it seems unlikely that the arrays will be in place and operational to monitor the 2010 run. The second objective pertains to initiation of habitat status and trend monitoring in the Methow River and habitat and fish population status and trend monitoring in the Entiat River. The work in the Entiat would extend effort already ongoing in the IMW. The Methow work is well justified. It will determine whether the methods and metrics developed in the Entiat and Wenatchee Rivers are transferable to other rivers in the region. The effort to examine transferability is certainly worthwhile. 4. M&E Because this is entirely an M&E project, the objectives, methods, and analytical techniques were adequately described in Section F, previously discussed. In Table 1 on page 11, A core list of physical/environmental indicator variables to be monitored within subbasins in the Upper Columbia Basin is presented. There is a footnote indicating under water quality that other indicators can be measured, e.g., various metals and pollutants, herbicides and pesticides. It is gratifying to see this point made, but we wonder how and who makes these decisions and what are they based on? How were such indicators used in the past with respect to crop lands (certain pesticides, depending upon a particular crop), wastewater treatment plants (flame retardants, pharmaceuticals and personal care products), mining activity (selected heavy metals), or urban areas with low flow streams? Contaminants should be treated as a "wild card" that can confuse any salmon-habitat relationships, even on a large scale, including smolt survival many miles from the contaminant source. This overall project and the second objective in this proposal (reach scale habitat monitoring in the Entiat and Methow) should directly contribute to improvements in protocols and methods of data analysis and dissemination for status and trend monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. Without additional justification, however, it was difficult to envision how the proposed additional sets of PIT-tag arrays would further the specific objectives of the ISEMP program at a broader scale.