The project’s status and trend monitoring objectives (1-4) and the tasks involved meet scientific review criteria. In future proposals, however, the proponents need to provide a more thorough presentation of results for each project objective, adding interpretive discussion of data. This is especially true for the supplementation part of the project.

Qualification: Project objectives 5 and 6, concerning the Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) procedure and habitat monitoring do not meet scientific review criteria. The proponents should prepare a comprehensive plan for the IMW project including its objectives, study design, metrics, and the project’s role in the IMW project. The ISRP should review the plan before its implementation.

Objectives 5 and 6 are not scientifically justifiable at this time due to the lack of specific detail concerning the Grand Ronde IMW program and this project’s role in that program.

In the proposal, broad objectives of the IMW program and ISEMP procedures and protocols are given, but little detail is provided about on-the-ground studies in the Grande Ronde basin. What are the specific objectives of the Grande Ronde? What is the study design? What hypotheses will be tested? What are the treatment and reference streams, why were they selected, and what are the restoration activities that are ongoing and planned in them? At what spatial scales will comparisons be made? What metrics will be chosen? What is this project’s role? Will the proponents integrate and analyze the data (as implied by the objectives), and how will the data be analyzed? If other projects are involved, what is their role? In short, a great deal more information about the IMW specific to the Grande Ronde and this project needs to be provided before scientific criteria are met. In connection with this, the ISRP recommends that the project obtain the services of a qualified biometrician to help with statistical design of the monitoring and of the subsequent data analyses. All of these questions should be addressed in a comprehensive plan for the IMW which should be reviewed by the ISRP before implementation.

The proponents revealed in oral presentation that they plan to add staff - a project leader for the EMAP (status and trend) and for the IMW. Their IMW will focus on the Grande Ronde above the Wallowa River. The project’s control stream for adult escapement, the Minam River is in wilderness area and is hard to access. The Lower Grande Ronde is also difficult to access in springtime. How will these factors affect accomplishment of the project objectives?

This major project, ongoing since 1994, seems to have substantial accomplishments, but this was not evident from the results presented in the proposal. There were tables and graphs on timing of movements of juvenile steelhead and Chinook and on smolts per redd for spring Chinook, but the proponents presented little explanation and interpretation of the data. They often stated what they did, and then referred the reviewer to a table or graph with little interpretation of what those results mean, no general conclusions being drawn. Also, it would have been helpful for the proponents to present tables in more concise and understandable form. The oral presentation provided interpretation that alleviated some of the interpretive deficiency. The ISRP requests that future proposals contain narrative interpretation and discussion of the project’s data.

The results need to be summarized by project objective to clearly illustrate that the project is progressing toward accomplishing the objectives. For each of the project’s four streams, information on spawner abundance and distribution, smolt abundance, smolts-per-spawner, smolt survival, life history characteristics (age, size, timing of migration), and juvenile abundance and distribution for both steelhead and salmon should have been provided, and then the meaning of this information should have been discussed.

Most importantly, the proponents should have discussed far more fully the supplementation evaluation, including study design, metrics, data analysis including statistical analyses, and results to date. Then, based on the results, the proponents should offer their assessment of the success of the supplementation program thus far.

The project’s status and trend monitoring objectives (1-4) and the tasks involved meet scientific review criteria. In future proposals, however, the proponents need to provide a more thorough presentation of results for each project objective, adding interpretive discussion of data. This is especially true for the supplementation part of the project. Qualification: Project objectives 5 and 6, concerning the Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) procedure and habitat monitoring do not meet scientific review criteria. The proponents should prepare a comprehensive plan for the IMW project including its objectives, study design, metrics, and the project’s role in the IMW project. The ISRP should review the plan before its implementation. Objectives 5 and 6 are not scientifically justifiable at this time due to the lack of specific detail concerning the Grand Ronde IMW program and this project’s role in that program. In the proposal, broad objectives of the IMW program and ISEMP procedures and protocols are given, but little detail is provided about on-the-ground studies in the Grande Ronde basin. What are the specific objectives of the Grande Ronde? What is the study design? What hypotheses will be tested? What are the treatment and reference streams, why were they selected, and what are the restoration activities that are ongoing and planned in them? At what spatial scales will comparisons be made? What metrics will be chosen? What is this project’s role? Will the proponents integrate and analyze the data (as implied by the objectives), and how will the data be analyzed? If other projects are involved, what is their role? In short, a great deal more information about the IMW specific to the Grande Ronde and this project needs to be provided before scientific criteria are met. In connection with this, the ISRP recommends that the project obtain the services of a qualified biometrician to help with statistical design of the monitoring and of the subsequent data analyses. All of these questions should be addressed in a comprehensive plan for the IMW which should be reviewed by the ISRP before implementation. The proponents revealed in oral presentation that they plan to add staff - a project leader for the EMAP (status and trend) and for the IMW. Their IMW will focus on the Grande Ronde above the Wallowa River. The project’s control stream for adult escapement, the Minam River is in wilderness area and is hard to access. The Lower Grande Ronde is also difficult to access in springtime. How will these factors affect accomplishment of the project objectives? This major project, ongoing since 1994, seems to have substantial accomplishments, but this was not evident from the results presented in the proposal. There were tables and graphs on timing of movements of juvenile steelhead and Chinook and on smolts per redd for spring Chinook, but the proponents presented little explanation and interpretation of the data. They often stated what they did, and then referred the reviewer to a table or graph with little interpretation of what those results mean, no general conclusions being drawn. Also, it would have been helpful for the proponents to present tables in more concise and understandable form. The oral presentation provided interpretation that alleviated some of the interpretive deficiency. The ISRP requests that future proposals contain narrative interpretation and discussion of the project’s data. The results need to be summarized by project objective to clearly illustrate that the project is progressing toward accomplishing the objectives. For each of the project’s four streams, information on spawner abundance and distribution, smolt abundance, smolts-per-spawner, smolt survival, life history characteristics (age, size, timing of migration), and juvenile abundance and distribution for both steelhead and salmon should have been provided, and then the meaning of this information should have been discussed. Most importantly, the proponents should have discussed far more fully the supplementation evaluation, including study design, metrics, data analysis including statistical analyses, and results to date. Then, based on the results, the proponents should offer their assessment of the success of the supplementation program thus far.

1. Why your data is "not electronically available"

Response:  Our data could be electronically available.  Tell us where you want it uploaded to be available.

2. What data sets will not be "electronically available" for various deliverables. Please specify the deliverable that is not electronically available. (Note a data set includes the raw data collected and additional data on analysis). For example if there is a deliverable for population adult abundance or habitat, we expect your raw and synthesized data to be made available electronically.
- Your response may help BPA identify funding needs for data repositories or identify an existing data warehouse that your data could be stored.

Response:  All data sets could be electronically available.  Where is an appropriate data repository?

 

This proposal is for ongoing studies focused on the early life stages of naturally and hatchery-produced spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Grande Ronde River system. The proposal is clearly written and very detailed. The statements of the project relationship to regional management questions are especially helpful in clarifying the project purpose.

The thorough project history indicates that studies of habitat conditions have been done which should meet the ISRP concerns expressed in the previous review cycle. The ISRP expects that the project will be able to examine for possible relation of egg-to-smolt survival to those conditions. Results from this project have been used in recommendations for protection and enhancement of Grande Ronde subbasin spring Chinook salmon populations and their rearing habitats.

The project has a long history of effective population monitoring and habitat analysis. However, it is unclear how the results will be evaluated. For future proposals it would be helpful to state performance measures and indications of how success will be determined. Additionally, it is not clear if or when study effort could be reduced because the needs for additional information decline.

The ISRP encourages the sponsors to share successes and lessons learned to others in and out of the region via professional publications.