expressed uncertainty about the overall functions of the project. The ISRP recommended that the project place the goals and objectives funded by BPA into the broader context of the entire M&E program. This proposal provides such an overview. Activities of the CTUIR’s M&E project both in and outside of the Grande Ronde subbasin are summarized. The project is using this BPA support and additional funding from the LSRCP, BOR, NPT, CRITFC, ODFW and other partners to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions and salmonid supplementation programs.

The ISRP also commends the proponents for the effort they have made to establish useful partnerships with other natural resource agencies operating in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Duplication of efforts are avoided, and resources, personnel, and ideas are being shared to everyone’s benefit.

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. Because of the importance of the proposal as a guiding document for the project, we encourage the proponents to revise their proposal to reflect these additions, but the ISRP does not need to review the revised proposal.

1. SMART objectives. Extend the flow diagrams for one supplementation assessment under “GOAL 1” and one habitat restoration evaluation under “GOAL 3” in a manner that ends with a suite of SMART objectives (see proposal instructions). These objectives should clearly express what tasks need to be accomplished and when each should be finished.

2. Accounting for stray steelhead in SAR calculations. Discuss how stray steelhead are accounted for in calculations of SARs and recruits/spawner values. It is not apparent from the proposal that stray adult summer steelhead entering Lookingglass Creek are being accounted for in the proponents’ efforts to estimate SARs and recruits/spawner values.

3. Project adjustment process. Provide additional detail on the process for evaluation and adaptive adjustment with information on known decision points, explicit schedules for evaluation and decision-making, and documentation of decisions and project changes.

4. 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 Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. During the response loop, 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

Many of the project’s implementation objectives and subsequent monitoring activities are repetitive and use standardized methods. As a result, the proponents chose to insert representative goals and objectives for several components of their M&E program rather than just presenting the relevant goals and objectives associated with work being supported by BPA funds. Top-down flow charts that illustrate the three major goals (one supported by LSRCP funds) are used to demonstrate how goals and objectives are linked together. The flow charts depict a logical hierarchy that starts with an overarching goal and, through a series of steps, eventually leads to general implementation actions. None of the representative implementation objectives, however, are presented in a SMART format. The Methods and Timeline portions of the proposal provide needed details about prospective implementation objectives. For example, the periodicity of occurrence and the seasonal timing of different types of implementation work are disclosed in these sections.

The proposal would have been more complete and clearer, however, if the proponents had restricted their flow diagrams to the ongoing and prospective activities that will be supported by BPA funding. We ask that the proponents extend the flow diagrams for one supplementation assessment under “GOAL 1” and one habitat restoration evaluation under “GOAL 3” in a manner that ends with a suite of SMART objectives. These objectives should clearly express what tasks need to be accomplished and when each should be finished. These objectives could build off the comprehensive work plans for each of their supplementation and habitat restoration evaluation efforts and the Grande Ronde Model Watershed and its framework of SMART objectives. Incorporating SMART objectives into a workflow schedule will help guide the within project adaptive management process.

Q2: Methods

The methods being used to collect biological and physical data are adequately described and suitable. However, the analysis and interpretation of some of this information, specifically in some assessments of fish responses to habitat restoration, do not appear to be entirely appropriate. For example, the proponents are using redd counts made pre- and post- habitat restoration to assess percent changes in habitat use by salmonids. However, these estimates are being made without considering adult return numbers and often with minimal pre-restoration data. This approach is problematic. In this type of Before-After comparison, redd counts need to be adjusted by adult return numbers as a greater or lesser number of spawning females will affect potential redd numbers. Simply using raw counts may disguise true effects.

The above example is representative of the challenge multiple projects throughout the Columbia Basin are facing. How can the effects of restoration actions on salmonid use, survival, growth, productivity, and abundance be objectively evaluated? Recently the ISAB (2018-1) completed a review of spring Chinook restoration efforts in the upper Columbia River. We encourage the proponents to refer to a section (4.2) in this report that identifies and critiques approaches that can be used to measure the effects of habitat restoration. In addition, Appendix E in the ISAB report reviews the assumptions made in BACI analyses and the diverse types of reference streams that can be used in this type of analysis. The project may find that more potential reference or control streams are available than previously thought.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

A formal adaptive management process has been developed for the Grande Ronde Atlas, and information gathered by the project’s fieldwork and analyses are incorporated into this process. Similarly, project data are used when Annual Operating Plans are developed for the Grande Ronde’s spring Chinook and steelhead supplementation programs. In some instances, information obtained by the project has also been used to adjust its own activities. It is not clear, however, if the project uses a structured internal adaptive management process to assess their own methods and their effectiveness or if the AOP, State of Science Meeting, or other venues are used to make such changes. Clarification is needed.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Project objectives that are supported by BPA funding include: 1) biomonitoring of seven habitat restoration sites in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek, 2) assessing the success of the spring Chinook supplementation programs occurring in Catherine Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde, and 3) determining the life-history of summer steelhead in Catherine Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde. Results from the project’s annual biomonitoring efforts, for instance, have revealed decreases in water temperature in restored habitats, increases in the spawning distribution of steelhead, and snorkel surveys showed increased juvenile usage/presence in some of the restored habitats, particularly in re-established floodplains.

Although the Chinook supplementation efforts have not yet reached population abundance goals on a consistent basis, the programs are contributing to the viability of the Catherine Creek and Upper Grande Ronde populations. Pre-spawning mortality has been identified as a potential issue, and a radio-tracking study started in 2019 is providing information on fish holding areas and possible survival bottlenecks. These and other results indicate that the project has supplied information that is being used to guide and improve ongoing restoration and supplementation actions in the Grande Ronde subbasin and some are also being used to populate developing life-cycle models.

Qualification: A full explanation of the monitoring program for the Grande Ronde/Imnaha should be developed by co-managers and made available to the ISRP. This should be completed no later than the geographic review of habitat projects in this subbasin/subregion.

This proposal can only be judged as part of a larger scheme to evaluate salmon and steelhead VSP parameters, hatchery effectiveness, and habitat restoration response in the Snake Basin ESU. The proponent indicates the work complies with the ASMS but does not link the work to specific objectives and goals of the ASMS. That makes it difficult to figure out what this project does in relation to other Fish and Wildlife Program and Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) monitoring by ODFW, WDFW, and the Nez Perce Tribe. The proponent (and those of other projects) should not assume that ISRP reviewers know how the project fits in with the overall program; instead, the proponent should summarize this in clear narrative form. In other words, the ISRP should not have to investigate outside the proposal (see below) to determine whether the project is meeting program objectives.

The ISRP could only assume that the projects are essential to the LSRCP, for the proposal did not tell why this may be so, nor did it give information by which to judge whether the data are being properly collected and analyzed. The ISRP is concerned about quality control within the project and the broader program. The overly fragmentary array of projects–and the confusing interagency responsibilities within this particular project–severely hamper overview with respect to scientific merit and raises concern about overall program design and supervision. A system for more easily understood integration of proposals is needed, and the ISRP encourages the project proponent to more clearly explain in future proposals the project purposes in terms of the overall program and what the results signify.

In subsequent investigation, we learned that the CTUIR weir monitoring on Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River is an essential component of implementation of the LSRCP in the Grande Ronde subbasin, and is essential for adult return data collections. The data analysis for artificial and natural production is performed by ODFW, funded by the LSRCP program. Juvenile tagging, juvenile trapping, and returning adult monitoring is funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program. The Nez Perce Tribe and ODFW are involved in smolt monitoring, and the CTUIR takes the lead on adult trapping and monitoring. The monitoring is done according to the NEOH monitoring plan, which the ISRP has reviewed.

The response to ISRP questions and comments was inadequate in many respects. For example, to address the comparisons of hatchery versus natural survival of smolts to Lower Granite Dam, the response only stated that the comparisons are complicated. Similarly, for volitional versus force-out release strategy comparisons for the upper Grande Ronde River, the response did not offer information other than they are of limited utility due to limited sample sizes. Some justification for terminating these comparisons or increasing sample sizes would be useful.

The answers to questions about specific Objectives 2, 3, and 5 contain piecemeal fact statements, which, taken together within each objective and lacking program-related interpretations, result in vagueness. For example, in the response on Objective 2 (evaluate performance of hatchery-origin juveniles), there is no discussion of implications for success of the supplementation program that may lie in data on the differences in body size and condition factor or on the differences in survival and in arrival time to Lower Granite Dam.

The response on Objective 3 (describe life history and productivity) has, again, no comment on meaning of the results for the supplementation program. Also, there is apparent inconsistency between the last sentence of response paragraph 1, which says that upper Grand Ronde River “natural-origin returns are frequently low compared to hatchery-origin” and the second sentence of next paragraph: “Mean SARs of upper Grand Ronde BY 1999-2004 hatchery origin [fish] ... was 0.5% (range 0.3-0.9) compared to 1.4% (range 0.6-2.9) for natural-origin.”

The response on Objective 5 (life history of summer steelhead) is a fact-string that comes to no point with regard to program success or lack of it.

The response was vague in overall effect on the ISRP questions as to (1) whether carrying capacity of freshwater habitat can be determined, (2) how such information could be used to establish goals and limitations for supplementation in subbasins, (3) how the project is helping to answer that, and (4) what the results indicate thus far. Related to that was the later ISRP suggestion that data from the project should be examined for signs of density-dependent compensation; this received no explicit response from the proponent.

Concerning the fact (from oral presentation by proponent) that natural-origin SARs in Catherine Creek from 1994 through 2004 exceeded those of hatchery by about three times on average, and that the proponents said results in upper Grand Ronde were about the same, the ISRP asked what this disparity may mean for the future of those populations. The response dealt with some operational changes that might be made but did not say what the disparity may mean for the future of the populations.

In response to the query about how far the program has progressed toward the goal of recovering depleted populations, the proponents present data on the populations and conclude that “it appears as though for most populations, replacement of natural spawners is not occurring ...” This would seem to demand an extensive response justifying why the project should continue.

The response should present the interpretations and conclusions that can be drawn from the data that the project has accumulated for 10 years or more. This requirement is consistent with the project objective: “Communicate results to the scientific community.” In addition, the proponents should explain more thoroughly in narrative how this project is essential and how it is integrated within the overall monitoring conducted by other co-managers for Grande Ronde projects. The proponents point out that there is no hypothesis or standard of evaluation for survival to Lower Granite Dam. In the response, they should rectify those deficiencies. They also state that for spring Chinook, most of the data are LSRCP project data, and that the weirs are staffed by other projects. Therefore, the ISRP requests that the proponents clarify what this project actually did. They should explain the sources of all the monitoring data for anadromous salmon. They should also explain the need for the data as identified in the basin Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy. The role this project plays in the monitoring and evaluation of BPA and LSRCP supplementation is not at all clear. There needs to be a full explanation of the relationships of the M&E projects in the Grande Ronde subbasin, including those implemented under non-Fish and Wildlife Program projects. Project proponents for research and M&E projects that have existed for a significant period (in this case, apparently 12 years or more, formerly within another project) should, besides showing the accumulated data, also present narrative analyses of those data – or explain why the data are not yet sufficient to permit meaningful analysis. Based on the project’s data thus far (and data from coordinated projects that this project uses), what do the proponents conclude with respect to the following project objectives: • Objective 2) evaluate performance of hatchery-origin juvenile spring Chinook salmon released from acclimation facilities on Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River, • Objective 3) describe life history and productivity of hatchery- and natural-origin spring Chinook salmon in Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River, and • Objective 5) describe life history of summer steelhead from Catherine Creek, the upper Grande Ronde River and Lookingglass Creek? One of the stated critical uncertainties that the project addresses for hatcheries/artificial production, harvest, and population structure and diversity (NWPCC 2006) is: “Can the carrying capacity of freshwater habitat be accurately determined and, if so, how should this information be used to establish the goals and limitations of supplementation within subbasins?” How is the project helping to answer this question, and what do the results thus far indicate in this respect? Further, the proponents’ goal statement in oral presentation was “to recover depleted populations in the Grande Ronde Subbasin of northeastern Oregon.” On the basis of this project’s results (and possibly those of coordinated projects), what can the proponents say about how far the program has progressed toward meeting that goal? The proponents’ oral presentation included two graphs representing some helpful data analyses beyond those in the proposal. One graph showed recruits per spawner (R/S) for brood years 1999-2004 in Catherine Creek and Upper Grand Ronde River (no results for control streams Wenaha and Minam). The other graph compared smolt-to-adult return rates (SAR) of hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish in Catherine Creek from 1998 through 2004. Natural-origin SARs consistently exceeded those for hatchery fish by about 3 times on average. The proponents commented that results for Upper Grand Ronde were about the same (no data shown). In the response, they should show the results and discuss what the disparity between origin types may mean for the future of the populations. This project’s data, combined with those from other projects in the Grand Ronde system, should be examined for signs of density-dependent compensation in populations (stock-recruitment analysis). Hints of it existed in presentations for several projects. Evidence of such compensation would bode against benefit from supplementation and would be consistent with the strategy of working to restore habitat. In other words, releasing smolts into a stream cannot benefit natural spawning results beyond a certain habitat-limited level, and that level already may have been reached in some streams that have less than favorable habitat. The numbers of adults in the streams look very low considering what one might assume “pristine” (or even more recent historical) abundance was. This may make it difficult to test for density-dependence. Fieldwork duplication does not seem to be a problem, but this project needs to coordinate closely with other M&E projects in data analysis and interpretation. In oral presentation, the project representative revealed that reduced landowner willingness to grant access limits suitable monitoring (the ISRP assumes this must also limit restoration and management). The ISRP urges that the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program’s liaison be reinvigorated to encourage better relations and more success in salmon recovery. The ISRP requests clarification about whether the project’s primary effort goes into assisting other co-managers or into trapping. A large component of the project is program assistance. Please justify this. There are three 0.5 PTEs working on this project.

Comments for BiOp RM&E Workgroup regarding RPA’s in proposal 2007-083-00

 The following constitutes the response requested, and provides justification for the inclusion of RPAs 50.7 and 62.4.

 

RPA 50.7.  This is assistance for marking of juvenile spring Chinook salmon reared primarily at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery (with some rearing taking place at Wallowa FH and Irrigon FH).  Stocks are upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek.  All fish (100%) receive some mark or combination of marks (Ad, CWT, VIE, PIT tag).  Marking is conducted under LSRCP Oregon Spring Chinook Evaluation Studies, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead agency.

 RPA 62.4.  Support coded-wire tagging and coded-wire tag recovery operations that inform survival, straying, and harvest rates of hatchery fish by stock, rearing facility, release treatment, and location.

This project supports RPA 62.4, although it is not a “selected” project under RPA 62.  The great majority of spring Chinook salmon production groups destined for release in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek are reared at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery and receive CWT. Snouts are taken from carcass recoveries made on spawning ground surveys, at weirs, or during spawning activities at Lookingglass Hatchery.  Determining the magnitude of straying by these two stocks is particularly important, as are the contributions to harvest fisheries and natural spawning of groups with no external marks (CWT only) and those with both external and internal marks (Ad clip/CWT). 

The proposed project is for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to participate with co-managers on a subbasin-wide monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Previously part of the operation and maintenance (O&M) project, the project is an expanded M&E effort. The need for monitoring and evaluation is clear. The proposal provides details for many M&E activities for Spring/Summer Chinook, Bull trout, and Steelhead.

The project addresses critical needs for information identified in the Grande Ronde subbasin plan and connects to various other plans and projects. However, the primary thrust of this project is aimed at assessing natural productivity in the subbasin. The relationships to other projects in the subbasin and in the region are clearly described. Collaboration is an important element of the work proposed in the project. The project has the potential to provide information that will benefit spring/summer Chinook, steelhead, bull trout and fall chinook. Ultimately, it is fairly extensive in its coverage.

The project defines several biological objectives, plus several programmatic objectives. Objectives include assessing status and trends of salmonids in subbasin, assessing salmonid productivity, assessing both life history and genetic salmonid diversity, assessing related program effectiveness, coordination, and reporting/disseminating findings. There is a need to separate the monitoring from the evaluations, and from research. Some monitoring of population dynamics at a few key sites may be useful for management. Evaluation of management actions experimentally is warranted to assess effectiveness where possible, but not everywhere.

The work proposed here should prioritize the data collection, analysis, and interpretation activities. Priorities by species, life stage, and geography would help ensure efficiency of this extensive project.

Most methods are adequately described. The proposal contains much variation in the level of sophistication and validity of statistical methods proposed. Some statistical methods are not appropriate such as using Scheffe's method for multiple comparisons only after the ANOVA shows significant differences or using Spearman's correlation for relating scale loss to season. The claim that cause-effect relationships can be inferred from an observational study is not scientifically sound without additional justification. These issues indicate that the sponsors should engage additional personnel to assist with data analysis and interpretation. A statistician should be involved with the project to provide advice on appropriate analysis methods and to provide support during analysis and report writing.

Facilities appear to be adequate. Personnel know the subbasin well based on previous work in the area. Information transfer is described and has an entire objective associated with reporting, analyzing, and disseminating information and data. It is unclear if the current personnel will be able to adequately process the data generated to provide peer reviewed publications.