The proponents responded concisely and thoroughly to the ISRP’s request for additional information and clarification. No further response is required by the ISRP.

In our initial review, we requested a response on the issues listed below. Our final comments based on the response are provided after each topic:

1. SMART objectives. The proponents revised 15 objectives in Section 3 in a SMART format. The response satisfies the ISRP’s request. 
   
   
2. Expected NORs. The proponents responded by modifying Table 3.1 to show the history of return objectives for the total number of hatchery-origin and natural-origin adults, along with harvest for fall Chinook salmon, spring Chinook salmon, and steelhead. The table is a clear presentation of changes to the goals through time and the associated legal decisions and planning documents (i.e., US v. Oregon, Umatilla Master Plan, Spirit of the Salmon, Umatilla Subbasin Plan, and recent HGMPs). The information permits the ISRP to directly compare the releases with subbasin goals. The response satisfies the ISRP’s request. 
   
   
3. Support to a M&E matrix. The proponents provided sufficient clarification. The ISRP appreciates the inclusion of Tables 5.1 and 8.1 from the other projects in the basin. This indicates an important level of communication and coordination among the projects’ actions and the M&E important for adaptive management. Such information will be useful in future proposals to clarify how monitoring data are being used to inform and adjust the project. 
   
   
4. Rates of strays and jacks. The additional information on the rates of straying and jacks provides a more complete picture of project operations. The references included for Clarke et al. (2008, 2010, and others) support the description of rates of strays and jacks. The response satisfies the ISRP’s request. 
   
   
5. Self-sustaining populations. The proponents provided additional information and discussion on the issues raised by the ISRP regarding the linkages between goals and actions. Importantly, the response indicated that issues such as inclusion of the 33% HORs as brood will be the subject of ongoing discussions between co-managers and monitoring programs. These are important discussions to inform decisions about harvest and breeding, especially when returns fall below stated goals in the implementation proposals and the HGMPs. The response satisfies the ISRP’s request.

The ISRP encourages the proponents to document the decisions made during these discussions (along with the rationale for them) in future annual reports, work plans, and proposals to more fully describe the adaptive management process.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

This is a long-standing project that has gone through periodic ISRP review (e.g., https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/umatilla-initiative-review ). The project provides important biological response data and analyses for hatchery production projects (especially Projects 198903500 and 198343500) and is critical for the adaptive management of salmon and steelhead in the subbasin. The proponents report on a thorough set of M&E actions on in-hatchery operations, but the connection to the “larger picture” on sustainable populations and ecological interactions was not clear to the ISRP.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following in a point-by-point response to assist our review of the proposal:

1. SMART objectives. The ISRP requests the proponents reformat the 15 biological objectives in a SMART framework (see proposal instructions) for review in a response. For example, Objective 1 currently states, “Monitor and assess whether broodstock collection and spawning protocols are met.” This could be replaced with “Objective 1. For each species and run, document broodstock collection for a) duration and representation of run; b) size and condition factor for males and females; c) number of jacks included; d) female fecundity; e) sex ratio; and f) other attributes for meeting benchmarks outlined in the Umatilla Hatchery HGMP. Results from this monitoring will be reported in annual reports and evaluated for achieving target levels annually at basin-wide winter coordination meetings during the project period FY23-27.” 
   
   
2. Expected NORs. The ISRP requests a clarification of why the expected NORs listed in Table 3.2 differ from the NORs listed as Goals on pages 19 and 20. Specifically, which is the current proposed target?
   • Spring Chinook 2000 vs 1700
   • Fall Chinook 4000 vs 4200
   • Summer steelhead 4000 vs 3600 
     
     
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 Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (199000501) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. As a key M&E project and partner in the basin, we ask your project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what, where, and when your monitoring occurs and what is being monitored for and shared with implementation projects in the basin. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. 
   
   
4. Rates of strays and jacks. The ISRP requests information on straying and “jacking” rates be included in the proposal - both by salmon and steelhead produced in the subbasin, but also strays from other mid-Columbia subbasins (specifically from the Snake River and perhaps John Day subbasins) into the Umatilla subbasin. During the presentation, proponents provided some relevant information on the role of diet and growth rate, but this does not appear in the results section of the proposal. Proponents also addressed information about comparing acclimation v. direct release. Again, these results appear highly relevant and merit summarizing. Co-managers likely have given consideration about straying and jacking decision thresholds (or triggers) that would reduce or eliminate further releases. 
   
   
5. Self-sustaining populations. The ISRP requests clarification on several points on developing self-sustaining populations of spring Chinook and steelhead. 
   
   
   1. Managers opted to discontinue the Conservation group of Spring Chinook in 2017, citing inadequate space to rear separate Conservation and Hatchery groups. However, the actual reason appears to be that returns of natural-origin spring Chinook salmon were too low (See Fig. 1.2, only a few hundred fish annually) to provide sufficient numbers of broodstock for the Conservation hatchery program. Proponents currently do not clip adipose fins on 150,000 of 810,000 smolts produced from the hatchery to increase escapement from the fishery and the natural spawning for HORs. Would this approach reduce the efficacy of the integrated hatchery program for enhancing natural production since it would lead to an increase in the proportion of hatchery origin fish spawning in the wild? 
      
      
   2. Similarly, unclipped HOR fish would be indistinguishable from NOR fish during broodstock collection. Would this lead to an overestimate of PNI in the broodstock, and perhaps lead to a reduction in conservation benefits associated with HOR fish contribution to natural production? 
      
      
   3. Managers use 33% hatchery-origin summer steelhead for producing smolts, amounting to 34 fish total (see 198903500 Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance) even though the number of adult natural origin summer steelhead spawners (about 1000 to 4000) are apparently not limiting natural production given the stock-recruitment relationship. Given the loss in fitness caused by including HOR steelhead in the broodstock, the ISRP request clarification on why any HOR are included rather than sacrificing a few more NOR spawners.
    

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

This project provides the M&E for hatchery production in the subbasin, especially those found within Project 198903500 Umatilla Hatchery O&M for artificial production and Project 198343500 Satellite Facilities for acclimation purposes of target species. The ongoing M&E proposed meets actions and objectives found in the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan related to population status and trends, natural production, hatchery production, fisheries, flow, and passage. The proposal also has objectives addressing M&E purposes in the NMFS Biological Opinion, NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program, and the Accords.

The current production (smolt release) numerical targets are listed as 800,000 fall Chinook smolts; 810,000 spring Chinook smolts; and 150,000 summer steelhead.

The targets for adult returns (HORs) from the hatchery artificial production have been reduced from the initial Master Plan to 8,000 fall Chinook, 8,000 spring Chinook, and 5,500 summer steelhead.

The written description in Section 3. Goals and Objectives was a bit difficult to understand, so the ISRP recommends that the proponents provide a summary table that includes smolt releases, smolt-to-adult survival, adult returns, PNI, NOR, and harvest to provide a summary of the proposed program. 

Q2: Methods

The methods described are generally sufficient for the kinds of monitoring and evaluation proposed. The ISRP appreciates that the proponents have described and cataloged the methods in MonitoringMethods.org. Data, such as CWT and PIT, are entered into regional databases, which is an important feature. Table 4.1 was very helpful in summarizing where key data sets can be found.

In the proposal, the proponents state the following: "Controls are not required in trend monitoring because cause-and-effect relationships are not sought. We monitor salmon and steelhead trends by making repeated and consistent measurements to quantify change over time." This statement appears to conflict with the objective of assessing hatchery effects using a time series approach. Aren’t the proponents trying to evaluate the cause-and-effect relationship between hatchery practices, return rates, and natural production? Perhaps the wording needs revision to something like: "The goal is to establish cause-effect relationship between hatchery practices and returns, but inference about cause-effect relationships from time series data without controls will be weaker.” Ultimately, the ISRP recommends clarifying this issue in future proposals, work plans, and annual reports.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents provide sufficient support for how the M&E activities and actions inform management in a general sense. Two multi-agency forums that meet frequently are the mechanism for sharing information and making adaptive management decisions. Table 5.1 succinctly summarizes a list of examples of how certain performance issues have altered actions taken for the subbasin’s production activities.

The Figure in Section 5 of Project 198903500 (along with Table 2 in Proposal 198902401) illustrates how M&E fits into the broader framework of the projects within the subbasin. The ISRP recommends including a similar figure or a Table laying out linkages to projects in the subbasin to ensure transparency. The ISRP does not need to see this as part of a response, but rather for inclusion in the future to provide adequate context.

The proposal states: "The relationship between harvest estimates derived from creel surveys and total returns to the Umatilla River of Fall Chinook Salmon, Coho, Steelhead, and Spring Chinook are shown in Figure 3." There is no Figure 3 in the proposal but there is a Fig. 2.1 which shows creel vs. punch card harvest estimates. Is the conclusion here that there is no loss of information on harvest since punch card data are still reported and correlate well with creel estimates which are no longer done due to funding?

At a more specific on-the-ground level, the ISRP requests that proponents of this and the O&M projects coordinate and provide a unified description of the M&E needs for the operational/implementation objectives and how the M&E provided herein link to these needs (see Request 4 above).

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Robust monitoring and evaluation of hatchery and wild production, return, and harvest are recognized as important elements for determining effectiveness of management projects in the subbasin.

Regarding the benefits to fish and wildlife, the proponents demonstrate modest (albeit, lower than originally proposed) return rates for artificially produced summer steelhead, fall, and spring Chinook. The HORs for each group permit harvests, while attempting to limit domestication risks. The M&E herein has provided important information about optimizing size at release, effectiveness of acclimation sites and other critical program elements.

Water for the USH has not met design specifications in its operational history and presents and ongoing challenge to the hatchery production goals and objectives. The effects of climate change, especially on seasonal temperature profiles and precipitation patterns, will likely be confounding factors in the future.

Modified by Brenda Liebman on 3/23/2023 12:20:09 PM.

This is a well-written proposal for a project with a long history of critical data acquisition and adaptive changes to increase information and understanding about steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project provides information on population-level survival, productivity, and life history data that is useful for assessing effects of habitat conditions, and restoration and hatchery programs. Of particular interest to the ISRP are the data which show declining smolts-per-female spawner with increasing female escapement (Fig. 3) and the interpretation of it that freshwater habitat is sufficiently seeded (p. 9). The proponents take the interpretation further, suggesting that supplementing the natural population with hatchery-origin fish may not have been an appropriate management strategy. This is a great example of interpreting M&E data to the point where it can be used by decision-makers.

However, as the data indicate that spawner numbers are not limiting juvenile production, then there should be a sufficient number of natural origin spawners to supply all the broodstock for the hatchery. Thus, the ISRP found it surprising that the hatchery program was using some hatchery origin returns for broodstock. Clearly, this program is providing lots of useful information for decision-makers, though some of the decisions regarding hatchery production appear to be ignoring some of the findings presented in the proposal.

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 Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (199000501) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. As a key M&E project and partner in the basin, we ask your project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what, where, and when your monitoring occurs and what is being monitored for and shared with implementation projects in the basin. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The section on goals and objectives was brief and some were not specific enough. Stating objectives using the SMART format would be helpful and should be presented in the next round of proposal reviews and annual reports. For Objective 4 for example, how the diversity of steelhead will be assessed is unclear. Also, for Objective 5, it is not clear how or when this this will be accomplished.

Q2: Methods

The methods are generally sound, but there are four areas for potential improvement.

Smolt run size is estimated by a series of independent closed-abundance estimates for each period (sampling interval). The length of each period was not specified in the proposal (except for TMF where it is one month), and the ISRP is concerned about the assumption that all marked fish pass the trap during the interval and/or that capture probability is constant over the interval. If this is not the case, capture probability and abundance estimates will be biased. To what extent have these assumptions been tested? If the length of the interval has increased to meet the passage assumption, is it likely that capture probability is not constant over the longer period?

A more flexible approach would be to use the Bonner and Schwarz (2011 and 2014, BT SPAS R library) time-stratified estimator. This model can be useful when recaptures for some periods are sparse, or when the trap(s) cannot be operated due to high flows (e.g., Fig. 6 of Hanson et al. 2020), and allows for finer temporal intervals that may lead to more accurate estimates of abundance and run timing. This approach avoids problems with arbitrary pooling of data across periods that is needed if sample sizes are low or trapping is not conducted over some periods.

Given the intense effort to mark fish and trap smolts, this analytical upgrade seems well worth it. The precision of smolt run size estimates at TMFD is very high (CVs 1995-2018 =5.4%) and may be an artifact of the analytical procedure (too much pooling). A better model may be more useful in Birch Creek where there are few strata which cover long periods where capture probability is unlikely to be constant as currently assumed (Table 7 of Hanson et al. 2020). Improved estimates of smolt run size at Birch Creek will lead to improved estimates of survival to TMF, which is highly relevant given concerns about survival rates in low-flow years. See Bonner and Schwartz (2011), Bonner and Schwartz (2014), and Hanson et al. (2020) for possible analytical approaches.

Egg deposition estimates could be improved by using a fork length-fecundity relationship rather than age-specific fecundity average. This would better account for the decreasing size and age-at-return that has been seen in many Chinook populations over the last decade or more (e.g., Lewis et al. 2015).

Would it be possible to develop a corrected SAR value that accounts for losses from fisheries? This would allow for better evaluation of effects of downstream/upstream mainstem passage or marine survival. Currently these effects are confounded with changes in exploitation rate.

Would it be possible to calculate the variance on the hatchery:natural ratio using the same binomial likelihood described for the smolt analysis? This error could be substantial for some tributaries where few spawners are observed or where the presence/absence of an adipose fin is difficult to distinguish.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal provides very little information on how effects of hatchery supplementation, flow, and habitat improvements on smolt run size or juvenile survival rates will be quantified. We suggest fitting a Ricker model with covariates:

log(R/S) = a + b*S + d*X

where R is the number of smolts from brood year t, S is egg deposition or female escapement that produced those smolts, a is the log of productivity (R/S when there is no density dependence because S is 0), b is a density-dependent effect, X is a covariate such as flow or some measure of habitat restoration, and d is the coefficient for the covariate (the strength of the effect per unit increase in X). Another covariate to assess could be pHOS, though it could also be included through adjustment of S via,

S = S*(1-pHOS) + S*pHOS*e

where the first group of terms on the right side of the equation is the contribution of eggs or females from natural origin spawners, the second group of terms is the contribution from hatchery-origin fish where “e” is the estimated effect of hatchery-origin fish on survival from egg-smolt. Essentially S is a weighted average spawner abundance, that accounts for reduced spawning success or lower survival rates of juvenile fish produced from hatchery-origin spawners. It may be challenging to estimate e, depending on the extent of variation in pHOS and survival rates over time.

Survival rates between release locations could be evaluated using

log(Surv) = b0 +b1*X

where b0 and b1 are estimated and X is the covariate to be evaluated.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal provides an excellent summary of the many project actions, what was learned from the results, and how the objectives and actions were modified as a result. It also provides information about how these results have influenced management and informed other projects that are closely aligned. The results have contributed to broader efforts in status and trend monitoring, and can be used in future life-cycle modeling.

One key problem in the subbasin is that both habitat restoration and hatchery supplementation affect steelhead abundance and survival in the Umatilla River, and so the effects are confounded. The proponents propose tributary-specific monitoring to allow separating the effects of these actions, and this is a high priority for funding.

References

Bonner, S.J. and Schwarz, C.J. 2014. BTSPAS: Bayesian Time Stratified Petersen Analysis System. R package version 2014.0901.

Bonner, S.J. and Schwarz, C.J. 2011. Smoothed estimates for time-stratified mark-recapture experiments using a Bayesian P-spline approach. Biometrics 67:1498-1507.

Hanson, J.T. Jewett, S.M. and S. Remple. 2020. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid outmigration and survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin. 2019 Annual Report BPA Project #1989-024-01.

Lewis, B., W.S. Grant, R.E. Brenner, and T. Hamazaki. 2015. Changes in size and age of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha returning to Alaska. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0130184.

Ohlberger, J., E.J. Ward, D.E. Schindler, and B. Lewis. 2018. Demographic changes in Chinook salmon across the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Fish and Fisheries 19:533-546.

The project proponents provided detailed responses that adequately addressed the two ISRP questions posed. The program is developing separate Conservation and Harvest stocks of Chinook and steelhead to be evaluated with PIT tags, genomic analysis, and monitoring of life history traits. The proponents would improve the project if they accounted for (1) variability of survival at sea and (2) current habitat conditions and progress in habitat improvement.

A response is requested on the following two items:

The ISRP’s comments were addressed in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. The response was thorough and gave frank consideration of issues raised by ISRP. The proponents provided detailed answers to ISRP questions and comments that clarified issues concerning the M&E program, especially the IMW project.

The proponents provided a reasonable justification for the design of the IMW project, which involves comparison between two treatment streams and a reference stream to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration in the treatment streams. Although the proponents argued that the treatment and reference streams were physiographically and biologically similar enough to provide valid results when compared, they were forthright and objective in discussing the limitations of the design, limitations that likely will be common to many future IMW projects.

Given the differences among the treatment and reference tributaries in many biological and physical habitat features, and past management actions, the strongest comparisons may be Before-After comparisons within tributaries in response to habitat restoration. Additional comparisons among tributaries that depend on similar "background" effects of supplementation can be made, but regression analysis using key covariates may be a more useful approach, as the proponents suggest.

One of the limitations of concern to the ISRP is the uncertainty of the degree of hatchery influence which could affect comparability of the treatment and reference streams. Another potential problem is that habitat restoration actions in the treatment streams have been ongoing for some time. The effects of these actions will continue beyond the initiation of the IMW project making it difficult to separate biological and habitat responses resulting from pre-treatment habitat enhancement actions from those occurring post-treatment, after project initiation. This residual effect of pre-treatment actions may complicate before-after comparisons. Finally, given the extent of habitat degradation in the treatment streams, will the proposed restoration actions in these streams, especially Meacham Creek, be great enough to produce a significant, detectable biological response? The proponents should consider how they will deal with these problems analytically or through modification of their design.

This project proposes status and trend monitoring of ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead and Chinook salmon, and collaboration in an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project intended to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in two tributaries of the Umatilla. Work related to status and trends monitoring in Objectives 1-4 meets scientific criteria. A response is needed that expands, clarifies, and provides more detail concerning the IMW project and Objective 5. The study design needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams needs to be provided. Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. Overall, this is a thorough proposal for continuation of a centrally important project in the Umatilla Basin. The investigators describe a highly integrated project to collect critical data on production and survival of wild steelhead and spring and fall Chinook salmon. This project could provide critical data to assess whether the habitat restoration projects in the Umatilla River basin are effective in increasing abundance, survival, and productivity of naturally-spawning steelhead and salmon. In addition, it provides key data to determine the success of the new integrated hatchery supplementation program, whereby separate groups of Conservation and Harvest smolts are produced. These data are necessary to determine if the integrated hatchery program is contributing to the recovery of steelhead and salmon, or just another factor leading to their demise (or no change is detected). 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project is consistent with many regional programs and projects including the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program and the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan. It addresses several RPAs in the BiOp. This work is of great significance to regional programs, because it provides critical data to assess how natural populations of steelhead and two life history types of Chinook are responding to a variety of conditions, including in-river habitat, flow, migration corridors, and ocean conditions. Without it, little will be known about the performance of the newly created Conservation groups of salmon and steelhead. The proposal includes status and trends monitoring and a new Intensively Monitored Watershed project. The main goal of the Umatilla IMW project is to determine whether habitat enhancement results in higher abundance, survival, and productivity of natural spawned steelhead and salmon. A confusing aspect of the proposal is that several of the objectives and deliverables include work related to both status and trends monitoring as well as to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation. The objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work should be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. Several projects are addressing components of the IMW work, although this project seems to have the bulk of the responsibility for its conduct. Dividing the work among projects makes scientific evaluation of the IMW effort difficult. Why was the IMW work not consolidated in a single proposal? 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This project has been ongoing in various forms since 1994, but underwent an extensive review in 2006 by the ISRP. It was restarted in 2009, after reformulating goals. This proposal is characterized by carefully planned sampling designs for the redd surveys and juvenile abundance in tributaries, and for habitat monitoring. The project can point to various results that have allowed managers to make important decisions based on the data that was collected. Based upon the results presented, the project appears to have been productive and has accomplished it objectives since it inception in 1994. Data collected through this project are critical for monitoring salmon and steelhead populations in the basin. A notable conclusion drawn from data analysis was that “habitat enhancement has not resulted in a significant improvement for summer steelhead and that the system may be at capacity for production of the species.” The negative relationship between smolts/female and number of females supports this conclusions and suggests that density-dependence may be affecting smolt survival. This conclusion is tentative but it argues for a more rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in the Umatilla Basin, which the proponents propose to undertake. In addressing adaptive management, the proponents indicate that the information they obtained has assisted with management decisions and provide some examples. They did not specifically address how their project has changed based on previous results. However, their decision to participate in CHaMP is indicative of their willingness to shift the direction of the project. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proposed project is one of four collaborative BPA funded projects aimed at monitoring the status and trends of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project is tied to several other BPA funded projects in the Umatilla Basin. It also relates to several other IMW projects in the Columbia Basin that are collaborating in the development and implementation of CHaMP. In particular, this project and another in-basin project (1990-050-01; Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E) are cooperating in conducting the IMW habitat evaluation in the Umatilla. Some discussion of the new C & H / Integrated Segregated hatchery production scheme would have been helpful, but it seems that the proposed project, without explicitly discussing it, will deal with it effectively. In addressing emerging factors the proponents make the general statement that the data collected by this project could assist in determination of fish population response to emerging threats but do not offer anything more specific. Climate change and predation by birds and native and non-native fish predators are key emerging limiting factors which are dealt with in other proposals. It will be important to determine how this project can link with those data, such as estimating loss of this DPS of steelhead from Caspian tern and cormorant predation at the mouth of the Columbia River. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods This proposal has components pertaining to both routine status and trend monitoring and evaluation of habitat effectiveness under the IMW program. Methods and metrics for assessing status and trends in Objectives 1-4 are fairly standard and are appropriate for this type of work. The ISRP views positively the proponent’s willingness to engage in rigorous habitat effectiveness evaluation under the auspices of CHaMP and according to ISEMP protocols. Properly conducted, this evaluation could yield the most valuable information to date on effectiveness of habitat enhancement in the Umatilla Basin. Several issues, however, need clarification. Several objectives and deliverables (e.g., deliverables 4, 6, 9, and 10) in the proposal apparently include work related to both status and trends monitoring and to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation, complicating scientific review of the proposal. It would be helpful if the objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work could be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. The study design for the IMW project needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams should be provided. The proposed approach for evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat enhancement actions is to compare a control or reference stream with each of two treatment streams that have undergone habitat enhancement. A main difficulty is that appropriate treatment and control streams are difficult to find. The Upper Umatilla, a reference stream, receives supplementation, whereas Meacham Creek, a treatment stream, has been subject to habitat restoration and also is supplemented. Steelhead use both tributaries for spawning and rearing. Therefore, a comparison between these tributaries should yield information on the effectiveness of the habitat projects in Meacham Creek, assuming there is no interaction between the habitat work and supplementation, and other physical and biological differences between the tributaries are negligible. In contrast, Birch Creek, another treatment stream, receives no supplementation but connectivity and fish passage has been restored. Since the Upper Umatilla is supplemented, it is not an adequate control stream to compare with Birch Creek, although trend monitoring (i.e., before-after) can be conducted to assess changes. How will this apparent problem be resolved? The proponents need to deal with several other questions pertaining to the IMW project. How do the reference and treatment basins compare physiographically and biologically? The history of land use, habitat loss, and hatchery influence in reference and treatment tributaries should be summarized. What habitat restoration actions have been and will be implemented, and on what time frame? What is the fish distribution and abundance in these streams? Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. What metrics (fish and habitat) will be compared between treatment and reference basins to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions? Will the proponents be responsible for collection of habitat and fish data, data integration, and data analysis? What data will be collected by other projects? An extremely large amount of data will be collected. How will it be analyzed? It should be possible to use model selection to assess how, for example, smolt production relates to habitat restoration, by fitting models with and without this covariate. ISEMP proposes a long list of habitat variables that can be measured. How will the decision be made as to which of these variables are most important for this work?

This proposal does an excellent job of identifying the problem and providing the technical background. The section on relationship to other projects was particularly helpful, both for understanding this project proposal and the others mentioned. The proponents are to be thanked and congratulated for supplying this vital information despite the limitations of the format of the proposal form.

Past history of some efforts is properly glossed over. These have been commented upon in past ISRP reviews. A history of review and adaptation within the program is clearly evident, with continual improvements, reporting, and publication. Success and failures are noted, and a list of adaptive management examples was tabled. Research continues on release strategies, but more work may be required on the issue of acclimatization sites and steelhead residualism, as well as evidence of collaboration on supplementation studies in the basin.

The reported results seem to indicate that the hatchery is not contributing to natural fish populations (see Figures 1 and 2). Are there other actions that need to occur besides hatchery releases and their habitat restoration activities to increase abundance?

The methods and procedures for collecting data on recovery of marked fish will be done by related projects that are specified. The goal is to obtain full accounting of all artificial production strategies -- a worthy goal. A missing ingredient seems to be designation of responsibility for combining description of both steps, the marking and recovery methods. Since it appears that the present project has the ultimate responsibility for analysis of the objectives specified, are we to assume that the progress report of this project will include both?

The ISRP qualifies this fundable recommendation suggesting that this program (Umatilla Program) is too complex to adequately review in an annual process and needs a more intensive review including a site visit, and presentation and discussion of results. Such a site review should be comprehensive enough to include an assessment of program goals and measurable objectives, results to date based on whether the program is leading to increased natural production (preliminary data to date do not show this is happening), design and structure of M&E program, and importance of entire O&M elements. Also, there is need to show how co-manager's programs are working together (or at least in communication).

See ISRP comments on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600.

This is a very thorough proposal with thorough methods that justify continuation. A history of the project to date was covered in detail in over ~ 20 pages. This project should assist in providing critical evaluation information to the set of Umatilla projects. And the ISRP encourages the proponent to publish results and observations in the formal fisheries literature. Monitoring and evaluation of smolt yields and survivals is the focus of the investigations. Some adaptive management is evident (e.g., steelhead releases moved to lower reaches), clearly indicating the benefits of this type of work.

The project should provide data on egg-to-smolt survival and/or smolts-per-spawner as a function of spawner density to augment the information provided in table 4 (p 33). This is the key response variable in monitoring population dynamics and towards evaluation of management actions.

There may also be a possibility, worth exploring, to collaborate with other tagging studies (e.g., POST), and to explore alternative methods for estimation of adults to relate smolt yields to spawner abundance more effectively.

See ISRP comments on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600.