Obtaining status and trends data on the abundance of summer run steelhead in the Touchet River has been a consistent challenge. Until recently, spawning ground surveys and redd counts were used to gather this information. Environmental conditions in the Touchet subbasin (high flows, turbidity), however, often put constraints on when such surveys could be conducted causing high uncertainty in abundance and productivity assessments. Because of these issues, the proponents have abandoned the use of spawning ground surveys and are now starting to employ a hierarchical Bayesian Model to estimate several key VSP parameters (adult abundance, adult to juvenile productivity, SAR rates, and diversity in migration timing and size at migration). This approach was made possible by improvements in portable adult weir designs and PIT tag detection arrays. Briefly, weirs are placed in tributaries to census adult numbers and a rotary screw trap (RST) is operated in the lower Touchet River to capture out-migrating steelhead smolts. NOR smolts receive PIT tags, and PIT tag detection arrays in the Walla Walla subbasin and mainstem of the Columbia River are used to track migration and survival rates. The proponents are in the process of comparing abundance estimates produced by their model to those previously obtained through the spawning ground surveys and are also using previously gathered project data to refine their Bayesian Model. It is acknowledged that additional PIT tag detection arrays are needed in the Walla Walla and Touchet subbasins and elsewhere in the Columbia Basin (e.g., in the Snake River subbasin) to help determine stray rates and further refine spatial distribution and diversity VSP parameters. At least for the present, the project seems well poised to produce status and trend information and SAR values on NOR Touchet summer-run steelhead.

The methods being employed by the project to estimate juvenile and adult steelhead abundance and survival are promising, well conceived, and innovative. Not only will they help assess the status of summer steelhead in the Touchet, but they also have the potential to be widely used in other parts of the Columbia River Basin where environmental circumstances make spawning ground surveys problematic.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans:

1. Spring Chinook salmon releases in upper Touchet. We recently learned that WDFW plans to release 250,000 yearling spring Chinook salmon into the upper Touchet on an annual basis into the foreseeable future. A substantial effort is being made in the Walla Walla subbasin to reintroduce spring Chinook salmon. Are these releases part of that effort, or are they being made for harvest augmentation and Orca relief? What will now happen to the 100,000 smolts from the hatchery that were scheduled to be released into the Touchet? Is any effort planned to evaluate the SAR rates, adult abundance, and stray rates of these fish? Precocious parr are likely embedded in these releases. Will their incidence be estimated? Precocious parr may compete with juvenile steelhead for food and territorial locations. How will such potential impacts be assessed? How will potential impacts of Chinook smolts to steelhead (the target species of this project) be identified and assessed?
2. SMART objectives. The proposal narrative clearly describes how the project has adapted its methods to meet its monitoring obligations. Yet, the project currently lacks an annual adaptive review cycle. Additionally, specific SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) need to be developed. A description of the project’s internal adaptive management process and associated SMART objectives need to be included in the project’s next annual report. In combination, the creation of SMART objectives and the use of an annual adaptive management process will allow the project to quickly identify and adapt to any potential problems or obstacles. See below for further comments on this request.
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. During the response loop, 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 primary purpose of the project, to assess the population status and trends of summer steelhead in the Touchet subbasin, is clearly articulated. Originally spawning ground surveys and redd counts were used to estimate and track adult abundance. However, environmental conditions often prevented these surveys from taking place leading to uncertainty about the status of steelhead in the subbasin. The project has recently stopped using this procedure. Instead, a mark-recapture method based on PIT tagged fish and their subsequent detections is being used to estimate VSP parameters. The rationale, benefits, and expected outcomes of moving to a mark-recapture approach to estimate demographic trends are well explained.

Tasks listed under the project’s six objectives describe the work that needs to be accomplished to use this new methodology. Some of the tasks described will occur on a regular annual basis, others may occur more sporadically. For clarity, the proponents should develop SMART objectives that are identified as either implementation or biological and indicate when work under each objective is expected to be completed (see the 2nd Condition above). SMART objectives are recommended because they can be easily folded into a project’s annual adaptive management process.

Q2: Methods

A clear explanation is given for why the project has moved from using data collected during spawning ground surveys and redd counts to a mark-recapture method to obtain demographic data on summer steelhead. Methods for how the project’s new approach will be implemented are well described and scientifically sound. The proponents are developing a hierarchical Bayesian model that relies on mark-recapture data to estimate juvenile and adult abundance and survival. This innovative statistical approach will likely be useful in other parts of the Basin. Preliminary results obtained from their model (Touchet Steelhead Abundance Model—TSAM) using existing data were presented in the proposal. The analyses performed helped demonstrate the suitability, benefits, and outcomes of their Bayesian model.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

No formal annual adaptive management process is described in the proposal (See the 1st Condition above). Nevertheless, project personnel have reviewed their operations and made substantial alterations. Foremost among those is the shift from using data from spawning ground surveys to a mark-recapture approach to track the status of summer steelhead. Other changes mentioned in the proposal were alterations in weir design, changes in juvenile and adult trapping locations, up-grading of instream PIT tag detection (IPTDS) arrays, and the use of Bayesian time-stratified population analysis (BTSPAS) software to provide precise and accurate estimates of juvenile and adult steelhead survival and abundance.

To facilitate further refinements to project activities, an annual adaptive management cycle should be developed and implemented. The proponents suggest that smolt trapping and operation of the IPTDS systems are well established and are thus not targets of adaptive management. Yet, at the same time, it is conceded that trapping locations and upgrades to individual PIT tag detection arrays may need to be reviewed and possibly changed to improve operating efficiency. Other aspects of the project are equally amenable to review and possible change. We suggest that with some re-writing and further elaboration, the tasks described under the project’s six objectives could be converted into SMART objectives. A dispassionate appraisal by the proponents on how successful the project has been in meeting its SMART objectives would constitute an important part of an annual adaptive management cycle.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The use of spawning ground surveys and redd counts to determine the status and trends in abundance of summer steelhead in the Touchet subbasin is often compromised by high river flows and turbidity resulting in incomplete sampling and questionable adult abundance estimation. Variable environmental conditions, including those that are likely to occur due to climate change, may also reduce the utility of spawning ground assessments in other Columbia River subbasins. To circumvent the impacts of variable environmental conditions, the proponents are using a mark-recapture method that uses PIT tagged fish and their subsequent detections to obtain estimates of smolt and adult abundance and survival.

This is a new approach for the project. Preliminary results from a Bayesian model using mark-recapture data obtained from PIT-tagged Touchet summer steelhead, however, are promising, but will require ground-truthing of model assumptions. As part of this approach, juvenile sampling gear (Rotary Screw Trap—RST) was moved to a lower location in the mainstem Touchet allowing for a more complete census of steelhead smolts than has occurred in the past. As the model is refined with additional in-basin data, its results will be useful in life-cycle models and in the conservation and management of summer steelhead. Additionally, the methods being applied here have the potential to be used in other Columbia River subbasins.

In our preliminary review, we requested responses on the following topics:

1. M&E matrix – lead. In their response, the proponents provided a table of 17 project activities for seven BPA-funded projects in the Walla Walla subbasin with brief descriptions of the sponsors, locations, focal species, types of monitoring, timing of monitoring, and data storage and archiving. The response also included a map of the monitoring locations for 19 types of monitoring in the subbasin (Figure 1). Three support projects provided information to the lead project. The proponents created a table that briefly identified the connections between implementation and M&E projects and described their current collaborations with other projects to develop a summary or framework for M&E in the Walla Walla subbasin. The response did not fully describe linkages between the implementation and M&E projects. Information on the type of ongoing or past M&E activities, locations, timeframe, and transfer of information between projects would have been useful in the M&E summary. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. We anticipate that the Fish and Wildlife Program will identify the specific elements and formats for these RM&E summaries and matrices in the future. The ISRP anticipates that this project will coordinate with Council staff to provide important information for the coordinated future M&E summaries for this geographic area.

CTUIR’s GIS department is addressing an important regional need by creating a web mapping application to assist projects in assigning monitoring locations with associated habitat projects in the CDMS database. Additional attributes will link M&E datasets with habitat projects to identify data sets associated with specific habitat projects. The project is exploring issues that need to be addressed for the final M&E coordination summary. The proponents plan to expand the mapping application to include M&E activities of other cooperators in the future.

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. The proponents provided a satisfactory overview of the Adaptive Management process being used by the project. The project’s Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (CTUIR 2018) indicates that reviews of status and trends data, working hypotheses, key assumptions, and decision rules occur annually. Methods used by the project also are reviewed and changed when necessary. Several examples of how methods were changed were given. These included changing the location of the project’s rotary screw traps in the upper Walla Walla subbasin, doubling the application of PIT tags on hatchery origin smolts, and the use of two PIT tag detection barges installed close to the mouth of the Walla Walla River. All changes were made to increase the accuracy of smolt survival and abundance estimates. However, changes in methods may not permit sound data comparisons among years as abrupt increases/decreases in trends associated with these methodological changes may reflect a reduction in measurement bias rather than a real response to management actions. Consequently, whenever such substantial methodological changes are made, it is important to note their occurrence in the project’s databases. Additionally, when possible, efforts should be made to collect data using both the old and new methods to allow data calibration.

Relationship of WDFW spring Chinook releases to CTUIR release

The proponents also gave a complete and informative response to our questions regarding the planned annual of release of 100,000 yearling spring Chinook salmon from the Walla Walla Hatchery into the Touchet River. Currently, these fish will not be released into the Touchet River. Instead, it is anticipated that the 2012 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the co-managers will be modified so these fish can be released into Mill Creek. The proponents supplied a brief, but satisfactory, explanation of how PIT and CWT tags plus PitPro software will be used to estimate the smolt survival, SAR, and SAS values of these fish.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested (Provided for context. The proponents responded to the ISRP’s questions; see response link and final review above.)

Response request comment:

The primary emphasis of the project has been to collect VSP (abundance, productivity, survival rates, and distribution) data on re-introduced spring Chinook and to a lesser extent on ESAlisted summer steelhead in Mill Creek, South Fork Walla Walla, and the mainstem Walla Walla River. Although bull trout are another ESA-listed species in the watershed, observations on these fish have been restricted to video monitoring at the Nursery Bridge Dam (located downstream of the North and South Forks of the Walla Walla River). The project has provided important monitoring and evaluation data to CTUIR, ODFW, and WDFW fishery managers. For example, the abundance and SAR values of summer run steelhead and spring Chinook salmon have been tracked since 2002 and these data are being used to guide future management actions. Data collected on spring Chinook, for instance, indicated that CTUIR objectives for harvest and conservation would not be reached using ongoing adult out-plants and releases of smolts into the subbasin. A spring Chinook salmon hatchery located on the South Fork of the Walla Walla River was recently built and will be used to augment the spring Chinook reintroduction program.

The hatchery will begin fish culture operations in 2021 and a pilot release of ~125,000 yearling smolts is scheduled to occur in 2023. Releases of ~500,000 yearling smolts are expected to begin in 2024 and annually thereafter. In 2013, 2015, and 2018, the ISRP reviewed the Master Plan and the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Walla Walla spring Chinook Hatchery. Our 2018 review (ISRP 2018-9) produced a finding of meets scientific review with eight qualifications. Two of the qualifications asked for more information on within hatchery operations. The remaining six dealt with post-release topics. During the project’s presentation it was made clear that hatchery personnel would be responsible for monitoring and reporting of within hatchery performance metrics (200003802). Conversely, post-release performance of the hatchery’s yearling spring Chinook salmon releases will be monitored, assessed, and reported by personnel associated with this project (200003900).

Data from the project are being incorporated into an adaptive management process by fishery managers to adjust the spring Chinook salmon reintroduction program and to track VSP parameters of these fish and of summer steelhead in Mill Creek and the South Fork of the Walla Walla River. The proposal does not explain how the project reviews its own procedures and determines when changes to its methods and objectives may be necessary, however.

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

1. M&E matrix - lead. One of the challenges for ISRP reviewers is understanding the specific monitoring that is being conducted for multiple implementation projects. Habitat restoration projects or hatchery projects implement actions that are intended to address limiting factors and benefit fish and wildlife. Most of these projects do not directly monitor habitat conditions or biological outcomes, but most identify other projects in the basin that monitor aspects of physical habitat or focal fish species. The monitoring project(s) in the basin provides essential monitoring data for habitat, juvenile salmonid abundance and distribution, outmigration, survival, and adult returns for salmon and steelhead. Some monitoring projects focus on status and trends in basins, while others focus on habitat relationships and responses to local actions. It is unclear what monitoring the monitoring project(s) conducts for each implementation project.

Given the regional leadership responsibilities of this M&E project, the ISRP is requesting the Walla Walla Sub-Basin Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation Project (200003900) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the geographic area. The summary should provide a table or matrix to identify what is being monitored for each implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. The summary also should explain how the projects are working together to evaluate progress toward addressing limiting factors and identify future actions. A map or maps could help identify the locations of monitoring actions. The monitoring information should clearly explain whether the biological monitoring is local information for the specific implementation site or basin scale monitoring of status and trends or fish in/fish out. We are asking implementation and other monitoring projects to assist your project in producing this summary.

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. The ISRP requests that the proponents explain the adaptive management process used to evaluate their methods and objectives. The ISRP encourages the proponents to highlight examples of project adjustments based on M&E results.

3. Relationship of WDFW spring Chinook releases to CTUIR release. 100,000 yearling spring Chinook salmon originating from the South Fork Walla Walla Hatchery were scheduled to be annually released into the Touchet River beginning in 2024. This release was curtailed due to planned releases of 250,000 yearling spring Chinook salmon by WDFW into the Touchet subbasin. A clear description or explanation of the relationship of the WDFW releases to the CTUIR release is warranted. Information on where the 100,000 smolts from three South Fork Walla Walla Hatchery will now be released and how their in-river survival, SAR values, etc. will be evaluated should also be described in the response.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal narrative clearly states the overall aims and expected outcomes of the project. General biological and implementation goals were presented for natural- (NOR) and hatcheryorigin (HOR) spring Chinook and summer run steelhead originating from the South Fork Walla Walla River and Mill Creek. A supplementary general goal of assisting in bull trout spawner surveys and documenting trout movements in the South Fork Walla Walla were also described.

Annual project objectives by fish species are shown in a flow chart and more completely described in the proposal’s Method section. Although not presented as SMART objectives, the project’s annual workflow and assorted tasks are easily understood. However, to facilitate the project’s annual adaptive process, we recommend that the proponents develop SMART objectives and use them in an annual adaptive management cycle. With some slight reconfigurations, such objectives could be produced from the proposal’s Methods and Objectives sections. The proposed work directly benefits tribal and non-tribal fishery managers. Data derived from the project’s tasks will track the effects of hatchery and habitat improvements on the subbasin’s salmonid populations.

Q2: Methods

The description of the methods being employed provides understandable summaries of the steps, procedures, and tools being used. Additional information about specific methods is also provided by links to finalized methods in the MonitoringResources.org web site.

Methods used by fishery biologists conducting “adult in” and “smolts out” evaluations have evolved over time in the Pacific Northwest. The ISRP commends the proponents for using upto-date methods and for breaking ground on new approaches. The Walla Walla Barge PIT tag array is an example of an innovative approach the project is successfully using to detect and quantify PIT tagged salmonids in a large river and deep-water environment where tag detection is often problematic.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents indicate that once the South Fork Walla Walla Hatchery has become fully operational (2022) that CTUIR, ODFW, and WDFW will draft an Annual Operations Plan that will be informed by results of monitoring and evaluation activities occurring in the subbasin. No formal annual adaptive management process was, however, described. The ISRP recommends that an annual adaptive management process be developed and implemented by proponents to include measurable benchmarks for viability along with if/then actions responding to measured outcomes. For example, adaptive scenarios will differ if returns are small versus those that are large. With some additional thought, for instance, the project’s described implementation objectives, data analyses, and work products could be folded into an annual adaptive management process. Because the project has been in place for over a decade, the ISRP recognizes that substantial changes in most of the project’s M&E activities are not likely. However, once the hatchery is operational and releases of spring Chinook smolts start to occur new monitoring and evaluation opportunities and challenges may occur.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

One long-term goal of the project is to establish a locally adapted spring Chinook population via a hatchery program. The hatchery will become fully operational in 2022, with smolt releases occurring during the spring of 2024. To promote local adaption, broodstock for the hatchery is expected to originate from HOR and NOR spring Chinook adults returning to the South Fork Walla Walla River. Eggs from spring Chinook trapped at Three Mile Dam on the Umatilla River will be utilized, as necessary, to reach the new hatchery’s production goals. Smolts from the hatchery will be used to help with the spring Chinook reintroduction effort taking place in the Walla Walla subbasin.

Data from the project has demonstrated the feasibility of reintroducing spring Chinook into the subbasin. Releases of out-of-basin smolts have occurred, adults have been produced, and natural reproduction has taken place in the South Fork Walla Walla River and Mill Creek. The project found no difference in the survival of HOR or NOR smolts as they emigrated through the subbasin. However, monitoring data indicated that a survival bottleneck for emigrating smolts occurs in the Walla Walla Valley. Knowledge of this problem has prompted the proponents to explore alternative release locations to enhance juvenile survival. Additionally, the project’s use of new equipment (two Barges with vertical PIT tag detectors) capable of perceiving PIT tagged fish in a large river environment is providing researchers and managers with an important opportunity to evaluate the utility of this approach throughout the Columbia River Basin.

This is an ongoing hatchery supplementation project with goals to rebuild the naturally produced steelhead population and provide adults for harvest mitigation, while also contributing to spring and fall Chinook recovery. The effort is largely a M&E effort to evaluate hatchery performance and assess the contribution of the hatchery to natural production.

The proposal provides data and an informative discussion about limitations for increasing the abundance of NOR steelhead from the current supplementation/conservation program, which was fully implemented more than a decade ago (2010) and replaced the Lyons Ferry stock harvest mitigation program. Owing to a high proportion of out-of-basin strays to the Tucannon River, including unmarked fish, the natal source of natural broodstock used for hatchery production in the new program is uncertain. This may limit the ability of the current program to rebuild natural production. The proposal also outlines issues with smolt quality and residualism and relates them to use of non-domesticated broodstock, though rearing differences (relative to Lyons Ferry) could also cause be causing these problems. Nevertheless, problems with smolt quality and residualism limit the effective production from the hatchery and could have impacts on natural production of steelhead and survival of hatchery-produced Chinook. While the outcomes from the hatchery effort have been disappointing, this project has been very effective in documenting these limitations, providing decision-makers with valuable information they could use to make adjustments. At this point in time, the data suggests that the hatchery program is not meeting its conservation or harvest mitigation objectives and significant changes may be needed to achieve the management goals.

As stated in the proposal, it is difficult to evaluate the improvement in productivity of NOR steelhead resulting from hatchery efforts relative to the original Lyons Ferry supplementation program given the large number of out-of-basin strays. This is a fundamental limitation to the effectiveness of the project, and the proponents discuss using an exclusion fence (which is likely costly) to partially mitigate this problem (at least for HOR strays, requiring marking of all HOR fish from all hatcheries in the Snake River Basin and beyond). However, the ISRP thinks it is still worth estimating NOR productivity from this project's data even though the effects of straying, hatchery broodstock changes, and habitat actions cannot be separated. It would be helpful for investigators to see if productivity is increasing or declining even if the cause for any change cannot be determined. More years of data are required to build-up the sample size to estimate informative spawner-smolt stock-recruitment models, especially if they allow for time-varying productivity or capacity terms via state-space modelling approaches.

The ISRP was glad to see the proposed effort to estimate the abundance of the residualized O. mykiss from HOR steelhead releases. These fish could have a substantive negative effect on NOR productivity by reducing survival rates of steelhead and Chinook fry and parr.

The proposal clearly describes links to other projects in the area. In regard to habitat restoration efforts, which began in the 1990s, the proponents note, "determining a fish response from these habitat restoration activities is a common request of project personnel but determining such relationships is challenging and not possible in all cases given the current scope of funding directed at the collection of the biological data." Nevertheless, the ISRP encourages the proponents to continue to improve upon high level metrics such as size-at-age of steelhead smolts, smolts-per-spawner in relation to spawning escapement (to the extent possible), water temperature, and other metrics that might be used to help evaluate fish responses to habitat restoration actions.

Although the proposal meets scientific criteria, we suggest that the proponents provide support in development of an M&E matrix for the Tucannon River.

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 Tucannon River Programmatic Habitat Project (201007700) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Lower Snake, Tucannon, and Asotin geographic area. During the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021), we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored by this project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The goals and objectives are well stated, and we appreciate the proponent’s clarification that their goal of evaluating the efficacy of the hatchery program for increasing the productivity of NOR steelhead is unlikely to be achieved due to high levels of out-of-basin straying. Fundamentally then, the program is unlikely to meet its key objective. We agree with the proponents that the data being collected is useful, especially if straying rates are reduced in future. The data being collected from this project serves as a baseline to evaluate changes resulting from future actions.

Q2: Methods

Methods for each task are summarized in the proposal. Additional details are provided in the recent project report and online links provided in the proposal. The project has been applying the same methodology for many years. WDFW recognizes issues with estimating the spawning escapement of steelhead associated with the very high stray rate of out-of-basin natural and hatchery origin fish, and the problem of Tucannon River fish bypassing the river and migrating above Lower Granite Dam. WDFW suggests that a trap in the lower river could help solve the out-of-basin problem, but additional funds would be needed.

The proponents show that steelhead smolt size has steadily declined since 2000, and they suggest possible reasons for this decline. To better understand whether this decline is related to growth or age at migration, we suggest that the proponents examine length at age, i.e., for age-1, age-2, and age-3 smolts.

The proponents propose a new effort to examine residualism in hatchery steelhead using a hook and line capture mark-release approach. Data on unmarked presumably natural origin trout should also be documented and related to estimates of hatchery steelhead abundance. Natural origin steelhead in the Tucannon River are known to produce microjacks and presumably many natural trout also reside in the river.

The number of PIT-tagged NOR returns at the fence must be very low given that only 3000 are PIT-tagged as smolts and that the current smolt-adult survival is < 0.5% (i.e., < 10 returning PIT-tagged NOR adults would be captured at the fence). Thus, determining the distribution of NOR fish with PIT antennas upstream of the fence must be very uncertain, which is a significant problem given the objective of this project. It may be worth PIT tagging NOR fish at the fence to increase sample size to get a better understanding of their distribution.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents provided a comprehensive and useful M&E report that incorporates relatively long time series of data. Adaptive management in response to quantitative objectives and project results has occurred over the years. The proponents state that nearly all changes have been directed at improving hatchery smolt quality at release, and/or release locations and timing. Also, given continued difficulties with rearing fish that originate from NOR parents (high CV’s, high K-factors), which can lead to high rates of residualism, the proponents have proposed residualism surveys in the Tucannon River beginning after the 2022 release.

A previous radio telemetry study by the Corps of Engineers at Lower Granite Dam aimed to better understand the overshoot of Tucannon River steelhead, but it did not address the problem as fish had already passed the Tucannon. To answer the question, WDFW recognizes that Tucannon River steelhead should be radio tagged at some location below the mouth of the Tucannon River, so their migratory routes can be observed as they pass the mouth of the Tucannon River. This study, while not yet proposed here, could help identify environmental and/or behavioral mechanisms involved with straying above Lower Granite Dam.

Adjustments to this project are based, in part, on metrics for steelhead smolt quality, and the residualism study that is proposed is a good addition to evaluate potential impacts of supplementation- and conservation-focused stocking. A fundamental limitation of the evaluation process is the inability to determine if unmarked steelhead returning to the Tucannon River originated in this system or were NOR strays or unmarked HOR strays from other systems. Is there any way of separating the Tucannon NOR component via genetic sampling and analysis? This may not be possible due to the long history of using out-of-basin broodstock and high levels of out-of-basin straying into the Tucannon, but perhaps this could be accomplished from microchemistry of otoliths collected from NOR carcasses. Some exploration of alternate approaches to tracking the Tucannon NOR component of NOR returns seems warranted.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal is clear on the project accomplishments and limitations. To date, the project has been particularly useful in quantifying total escapement and spawning escapement, the contributions of HOR and NOR fish including contributions of HOR fish from other basins, smolt production, and smolt-adult survival. The proposal also includes a new project that begins to evaluate impacts of hatchery releases by estimating the size of the residualized population. The proposal is very clear about the challenges in evaluating potential benefits of increasing use of in-basin broodstock given high levels of out-of-basin strays.

The proposal and the recent project report provide a comprehensive summary of project results and conclusions. The general findings include:

• Substantial numbers of Tucannon River steelhead (both hatchery and wild origin) continue to bypass the Tucannon River and overshoot to locations above Lower Granite Dam.

• Large numbers of hatchery and other natural origin summer steelhead from other populations/programs outside the Tucannon River spawn in the Tucannon River. Many of these “stray” steelhead have overshot their intended return location (Mid-Columbia River populations) and end up in the Tucannon River to spawn as a last resort.

• To date WDFW has only been able to estimate the number of steelhead escaping into the Tucannon River based on in-stream PIT tag detections. Accurately determining how many steelhead are spawning has not been possible because many of the assumptions used to estimate the number of spawners have not been validated.

• Some type of adult trapping near the mouth of the Tucannon River is desired for the long-term management of this population. Managing steelhead straying and/or hatchery fish entering the Tucannon River that do not belong is difficult when relying on harvest efforts alone to control the number of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds.

Modified by Thomas Ono on 4/7/2023 2:37:04 PM.

The proposed work is important and is well justified. The project will provide important information on status and trends of steelhead and reintroduced spring Chinook in the Walla Walla River and its tributaries. Major results of the project were presented comprehensively in the proposal and progress to date is in line with project objectives. The presentation to the ISRP was well done and addressed many of our questions.

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

The project directly addresses objectives of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan and is consistent with its RM&E needs and recommendations. It emphasizes meeting NOAA-Fisheries VSP monitoring needs and guidelines. It is also consistent with the Lower Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, the mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan (2009), and the Council’s MERR.

The objectives presented in the Objectives and Project Deliverables section provide a general idea of what the project is about. Specific objectives can be inferred from the study design and methods, but it would have been helpful if they had been clearly stated.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project has made significant progress in evaluating adult and juvenile salmonid abundance, distribution, and productivity and is continuing to find ways to improve reliability of data. For example, it has been hampered to a degree by several problems that have complicated adult enumeration including different enumeration methods (video cameras, weirs) at different locations within the subbasin with dissimilar detection or capture, and adult spawning below detection facilities. Due to these factors the reliability and comparability between tributaries of adult estimates is somewhat uncertain. The proponents are exploring ways to improve accuracy of adult counts and establish additional counting sites. It would have been helpful if they had discussed these potential improvements and indicated how (or how much) they would improve estimates of returns.

Results presented were rather extensive and included redd count data, genetic analyses, movement patterns of radiotagged fish, returns of hatchery and naturally spawning adults, and estimates of recruits per spawner, in-basin smolt survival, and SARs. The presentation of results could have been made more concise if extraneous information pertaining primarily to operations and activities were omitted.

In relation to adaptive management, the proponents did not specifically indicate changes made in the project based on previous results. They did indicate how information from the project is used by managers. It is apparent, though, that adaptive changes are being made to improve accuracy and precision of data such as adult returns. These changes are a good indication that the project will continue to operate in an adaptive mode and seek ways to improve data collection.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The project cooperates and coordinates with watershed councils, irrigation districts, state and federal agencies, and numerous other organizations. It is closely associated with two other fish monitoring and evaluation projects in the Walla Walla Subbasin. It is also related to a number of other BPA funded projects.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Methods and metrics are reasonably detailed, are standard for assessing salmonid abundance and survival, and appear appropriate for addressing the objectives. The proposal could be better organized, extraneous material eliminated, and redundancy reduced. At least in part these problems could be attributed to the proposal format.

The proposal would have been easier to follow if specific objectives were first stated (e.g., enumerate adults), then the methods and metrics for accomplishing each objective for each species were provided. For example, for each species:
• How will number of returning adults be enumerated (facility location, method of enumeration, measurements, time frame, relative precision and accuracy of enumeration methods, problems encountered that reduce precision and accuracy, how these problems will be dealt with, etc.)?
• How will hatchery and naturally spawning fish be differentiated?
• How many fish will be marked and where, what information will be gained from the marked fish?
• How will the data be analyzed?

Most of this information is provided in the proposal, but it is difficult to associate it with individual species and tributaries. There certainly are elements of the study design, methods, metrics, and estimation of parameters such as SARs that are common to all species and these could have been pointed out and consolidated, but there appear to be some important differences between species, for example in the way adults are enumerated, and special problems presented due to the differing life histories. It appears that all of the necessary elements are present in the proposal. The proponents just need to present it in a more concise, logical, and understandable way. Maps of the basin, river channels and names, and locations of facilities are not clear, perhaps due to the Taurus format. It would be helpful if a map showing major spawning distributions of each species with an explanation would have been provided.

The proposed work is important and is well justified. The project will provide important information on status and trends of steelhead and reintroduced spring Chinook in the Walla Walla River and its tributaries. Major results of the project were presented comprehensively in the proposal and progress to date is in line with project objectives. The presentation to the ISRP was well done and addressed many of our questions. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project directly addresses objectives of the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan and is consistent with its RM&E needs and recommendations. It emphasizes meeting NOAA-Fisheries VSP monitoring needs and guidelines. It is also consistent with the Lower Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, the mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS Recovery Plan (2009), and the Council’s MERR. The objectives presented in the Objectives and Project Deliverables section provide a general idea of what the project is about. Specific objectives can be inferred from the study design and methods, but it would have been helpful if they had been clearly stated. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The project has made significant progress in evaluating adult and juvenile salmonid abundance, distribution, and productivity and is continuing to find ways to improve reliability of data. For example, it has been hampered to a degree by several problems that have complicated adult enumeration including different enumeration methods (video cameras, weirs) at different locations within the subbasin with dissimilar detection or capture, and adult spawning below detection facilities. Due to these factors the reliability and comparability between tributaries of adult estimates is somewhat uncertain. The proponents are exploring ways to improve accuracy of adult counts and establish additional counting sites. It would have been helpful if they had discussed these potential improvements and indicated how (or how much) they would improve estimates of returns. Results presented were rather extensive and included redd count data, genetic analyses, movement patterns of radiotagged fish, returns of hatchery and naturally spawning adults, and estimates of recruits per spawner, in-basin smolt survival, and SARs. The presentation of results could have been made more concise if extraneous information pertaining primarily to operations and activities were omitted. In relation to adaptive management, the proponents did not specifically indicate changes made in the project based on previous results. They did indicate how information from the project is used by managers. It is apparent, though, that adaptive changes are being made to improve accuracy and precision of data such as adult returns. These changes are a good indication that the project will continue to operate in an adaptive mode and seek ways to improve data collection. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The project cooperates and coordinates with watershed councils, irrigation districts, state and federal agencies, and numerous other organizations. It is closely associated with two other fish monitoring and evaluation projects in the Walla Walla Subbasin. It is also related to a number of other BPA funded projects. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods Methods and metrics are reasonably detailed, are standard for assessing salmonid abundance and survival, and appear appropriate for addressing the objectives. The proposal could be better organized, extraneous material eliminated, and redundancy reduced. At least in part these problems could be attributed to the proposal format. The proposal would have been easier to follow if specific objectives were first stated (e.g., enumerate adults), then the methods and metrics for accomplishing each objective for each species were provided. For example, for each species: • How will number of returning adults be enumerated (facility location, method of enumeration, measurements, time frame, relative precision and accuracy of enumeration methods, problems encountered that reduce precision and accuracy, how these problems will be dealt with, etc.)? • How will hatchery and naturally spawning fish be differentiated? • How many fish will be marked and where, what information will be gained from the marked fish? • How will the data be analyzed? Most of this information is provided in the proposal, but it is difficult to associate it with individual species and tributaries. There certainly are elements of the study design, methods, metrics, and estimation of parameters such as SARs that are common to all species and these could have been pointed out and consolidated, but there appear to be some important differences between species, for example in the way adults are enumerated, and special problems presented due to the differing life histories. It appears that all of the necessary elements are present in the proposal. The proponents just need to present it in a more concise, logical, and understandable way. Maps of the basin, river channels and names, and locations of facilities are not clear, perhaps due to the Taurus format. It would be helpful if a map showing major spawning distributions of each species with an explanation would have been provided.

Qualification: This project should be included in the CRHEET supplementation evaluation umbrella.

This is a proposal for tagging and data collection for evaluation of a steelhead supplementation program in the Tucannon River that is implemented under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

The monitoring is essential to evaluate the conversion of hatchery steelhead production in the Tucannon River from the release of out-of-subbasin Lyons Ferry production stock to an endemic (local) stock primarily reared and released in the Tucannon River subbasin. The transition is an effort to maintain mitigation fisheries under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and US v. Oregon while protecting the native population in the Tucannon River. There are complicated circumstances (i.e., apparently half the returning hatchery and natural-origin steelhead bypass the Tucannon and enter other Snake River tributaries, and others spawn below a hatchery weir) that may compromise this effort to obtain data that will provide meaningful analysis. The proponents, however, have a good track record of evaluating hatchery programs.

If there is expansion of LSRCP hatchery facilities, it would be reasonable to have those reviewed through the Three-Step Process used in the Fish and Wildlife Program, since the LSRCP is BPA funded, and reviewed as part of the “reimbursable” program.

Although the proposed data collection is essential for the supplementation to be evaluated, the description of the actual field data collection methodology, vital statistic estimation, and supplementation evaluation is not yet detailed enough for scientific review.

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

As stated, “The primary goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of both natural and hatchery origin summer steelhead in the Tucannon River.”


In addition, there are four main objectives for this proposal:
1. Document change in productivity of steelhead above the Tucannon Weir
2. Estimate total adult steelhead returns to the Tucannon River
3. Estimate distribution of hatchery and wild spawners in Tucannon River
4. Document in-hatchery survival performance of supplementation steelhead.

Although these were all clearly laid out in a logical progression, it is not clear how a system can be designed for supplementation in the Tucannon that is restricted to the area above the hatchery, when the population above and below the weir are not clearly independent. The objectives for monitoring, to evaluate adult and juvenile abundance, and ultimately estimate adult-to-adult productivity, are the correct essential data to collect. It is not clear from the proposal how well this can be accomplished. The evaluation of supplementation requires using these essential data in statistical comparisons of before/after and control/reference or perhaps some other design. These evaluations need to be carefully assessed. It is not clear from the presentation how the comparisons will be made.

Significance to regional programs is amply described; the relationship to LSRCP, the BiOp, US v. Oregon, etc. is succinct.

Technical background: The current status of steelhead in the Tucannon River is not described, and the anticipated system capacity, goals of the hatchery program, and performance of the hatchery fish in the system are not clearly described. A discussion of supplementation of other steelhead in the Columbia River Basin is not presented. There is or has been supplementation of steelhead in the Hood River, Umatilla, and Imnaha rivers, and the performance of those programs was not included in the technical background.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

There is a general discussion of past history of using Lyons Ferry steelhead in the Tucannon to develop a harvest program for steelhead. The results of using local fish beginning in 2000 is only briefly presented, and not in a fashion that is interpretable in terms of whether the feasibility stage yielded performance justifying the proposed project’s moving to an expanded pilot stage.

Throughout the proposal there are some troubling statements, e.g., that the BiOp expects supplementation to improve productivity of steelhead. Supplementation may increase abundance, but there is not a conceptual foundation for supplementation that it will increase productivity. Under supplementation, productivity is likely to decrease owing to both density dependence and fitness effects. The ISRP is under the impression that preliminary analyses from a number of systems demonstrate that natural productivity is reduced in the presence of hatchery fish. There is a lack of attention to the need for objectives for natural-origin steelhead abundance (although mention is made of 285 fish). Supplementation has as its primary objective the goal of maintaining or increasing the abundance of natural-origin adults. This increase in generation 0+1 is to be achieved by increasing total abundance in generation 0 by permitting hatchery-origin adults to spawn naturally. This phenomenon has not yet been demonstrated (see CRHEET proposal).

So, the project needs a better description and basis for adaptive management in the Tucannon itself, and adaptive management systemwide for steelhead supplementation. The ISRP does appreciate and acknowledge the discussion of transitioning from using the Lyons Ferry hatchery steelhead to provide harvest mitigation to conservation. Discussion in various areas of the proposal to suggest that harvest of a significant portion of the “endemic” production is anticipated. That “other” hatchery programs could be implemented (including supplementation) following the cessation of supplementation above the hatchery weir appears to conflict with guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Program.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The relationships with other projects are explained adequately.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The set of expected deliverables is reasonable. The workplan was laid out clearly, but a better description is needed of the subbasin layout, where the new PIT tag array will be, and how various data will be collected and then evaluated.

Qualification: This project should be included in the CRHEET supplementation evaluation umbrella. This is a proposal for tagging and data collection for evaluation of a steelhead supplementation program in the Tucannon River that is implemented under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. The monitoring is essential to evaluate the conversion of hatchery steelhead production in the Tucannon River from the release of out-of-subbasin Lyons Ferry production stock to an endemic (local) stock primarily reared and released in the Tucannon River subbasin. The transition is an effort to maintain mitigation fisheries under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and US v. Oregon while protecting the native population in the Tucannon River. There are complicated circumstances (i.e., apparently half the returning hatchery and natural-origin steelhead bypass the Tucannon and enter other Snake River tributaries, and others spawn below a hatchery weir) that may compromise this effort to obtain data that will provide meaningful analysis. The proponents, however, have a good track record of evaluating hatchery programs. If there is expansion of LSRCP hatchery facilities, it would be reasonable to have those reviewed through the Three-Step Process used in the Fish and Wildlife Program, since the LSRCP is BPA funded, and reviewed as part of the “reimbursable” program. Although the proposed data collection is essential for the supplementation to be evaluated, the description of the actual field data collection methodology, vital statistic estimation, and supplementation evaluation is not yet detailed enough for scientific review. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives As stated, “The primary goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of both natural and hatchery origin summer steelhead in the Tucannon River.” In addition, there are four main objectives for this proposal: 1. Document change in productivity of steelhead above the Tucannon Weir 2. Estimate total adult steelhead returns to the Tucannon River 3. Estimate distribution of hatchery and wild spawners in Tucannon River 4. Document in-hatchery survival performance of supplementation steelhead. Although these were all clearly laid out in a logical progression, it is not clear how a system can be designed for supplementation in the Tucannon that is restricted to the area above the hatchery, when the population above and below the weir are not clearly independent. The objectives for monitoring, to evaluate adult and juvenile abundance, and ultimately estimate adult-to-adult productivity, are the correct essential data to collect. It is not clear from the proposal how well this can be accomplished. The evaluation of supplementation requires using these essential data in statistical comparisons of before/after and control/reference or perhaps some other design. These evaluations need to be carefully assessed. It is not clear from the presentation how the comparisons will be made. Significance to regional programs is amply described; the relationship to LSRCP, the BiOp, US v. Oregon, etc. is succinct. Technical background: The current status of steelhead in the Tucannon River is not described, and the anticipated system capacity, goals of the hatchery program, and performance of the hatchery fish in the system are not clearly described. A discussion of supplementation of other steelhead in the Columbia River Basin is not presented. There is or has been supplementation of steelhead in the Hood River, Umatilla, and Imnaha rivers, and the performance of those programs was not included in the technical background. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management There is a general discussion of past history of using Lyons Ferry steelhead in the Tucannon to develop a harvest program for steelhead. The results of using local fish beginning in 2000 is only briefly presented, and not in a fashion that is interpretable in terms of whether the feasibility stage yielded performance justifying the proposed project’s moving to an expanded pilot stage. Throughout the proposal there are some troubling statements, e.g., that the BiOp expects supplementation to improve productivity of steelhead. Supplementation may increase abundance, but there is not a conceptual foundation for supplementation that it will increase productivity. Under supplementation, productivity is likely to decrease owing to both density dependence and fitness effects. The ISRP is under the impression that preliminary analyses from a number of systems demonstrate that natural productivity is reduced in the presence of hatchery fish. There is a lack of attention to the need for objectives for natural-origin steelhead abundance (although mention is made of 285 fish). Supplementation has as its primary objective the goal of maintaining or increasing the abundance of natural-origin adults. This increase in generation 0+1 is to be achieved by increasing total abundance in generation 0 by permitting hatchery-origin adults to spawn naturally. This phenomenon has not yet been demonstrated (see CRHEET proposal). So, the project needs a better description and basis for adaptive management in the Tucannon itself, and adaptive management systemwide for steelhead supplementation. The ISRP does appreciate and acknowledge the discussion of transitioning from using the Lyons Ferry hatchery steelhead to provide harvest mitigation to conservation. Discussion in various areas of the proposal to suggest that harvest of a significant portion of the “endemic” production is anticipated. That “other” hatchery programs could be implemented (including supplementation) following the cessation of supplementation above the hatchery weir appears to conflict with guidance in the Fish and Wildlife Program. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The relationships with other projects are explained adequately. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The set of expected deliverables is reasonable. The workplan was laid out clearly, but a better description is needed of the subbasin layout, where the new PIT tag array will be, and how various data will be collected and then evaluated.

Most of the ISRP's comments were adequately addressed. The sponsors, however, did not truly address the need for prioritization of M&E actions to answer key management questions. The ISRP recognizes that the sponsors provided sound justification for their basic monitoring designs, taking an EMAP approach to assess smolt emigration and adult returns. Moreover, the conceptual Venn diagram is a good heuristic tool and the sponsors did provide better information on completion of tasks and activities, but they did not provide much quantitative data of findings to date. Thus, while the response represents an important improvement, the originally identified deficiency remains in place. Ultimately, the ISRP will need some detailed specifics to more fully evaluate the rigor of the science behind this collaborative M&E project.

The ISRP also identifies the need for this project (and directly related projects) to undergo an independent, comprehensive, site review to assess the integration of M&E data with management decisions before the next cycle of project funding. The sponsors have been conducting this project for six years. What is the justification for continuing project and what has been learned (and management adapted or maintained to date)?

Qualification: Finally, a decision analysis framework for fisheries management is required that incorporates risk assessment and options. As presented, the response (which is similar to that from Proposal #199905001) did not address the alignment of M&E tasks with key management decisions and objectives (as provided reasonably well within the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan (see Table 7.9)). In short, Objectives as listed in the proposal and response do not provide a clear program of data-driven evaluation and adaptive management.