The sponsors adequately addressed the ISRP's comments. The details provided by the sponsors are helpful in evaluating this proposal and are much appreciated. The project, however, requires more data to show that the expanded habitat is producing fishery benefits.

The sponsors provided clear responses to ISRP questions. They made heavy use of habitat models (EDT, PHABSIM) to forecast benefits from increased flow. This strategy permits development of a hypothesis regarding the benefits of the proposed action. The test of this hypothesis, and thus the science behind this project, awaits the availability of data to assess these predictions. This project could provide an opportunity to test the model results from EDT and PHABSIM. There is, at present, a leap of faith associated with the project. Additional flow in the affected reach may or may not be crucial for the target species. It would be, for example, if it were shown that production in this reach limits recruitment to the adult stages. It may be, however, that low survival in this reach is compensated by relatively high survival at some other location or life-history stage. If compensated, low survival in this reach would have no impact on recruitment to the adult stages. Ultimately, future expenditures in the basin and elsewhere for this kind of project will benefit from good M&E and reporting of results.

This proposal should be linked to the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program (proposal #200201301) and address the criteria for water transactions under that program that are relevant to the proposed actions.

The proposed work is part of a larger effort to restore flows to the Touchet River. This larger effort is supported by significant funds from multiple sources. The fisheries benefits accrued from the proposed project are uncertain. Apparently no EDT or any other type of analysis was done to estimate amount of flow increases needed to significantly increase fish production. The scientific credibility of this project depends on development of a hypothesis regarding the magnitude of fisheries and habitat benefits expected and strategies to obtain data to test it. The results of the larger effort to provide flows could provide important benefits to fish over the longer term, but again specific estimates of these benefits were not provided by the sponsors. The response of the sponsors of project #200733000 is an example of how fisheries and habitat benefits from increased flow could be estimated.

The sponsors did not provide additional background on the project area as requested by the ISRP. This proposal should be linked to the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program (# 200201301) and address that program's criteria for water transactions that are relevant to the proposed actions.

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