The ISRP is waiting for a response to determine whether this project meets scientific review criteria. The Grande Ronde Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring Project is a critically important project for the Fish and Wildlife Program, regional assessments and life cycle modeling, and ongoing management decisions in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha basins. This project provides essential monitoring data for habitat, juvenile salmonid abundance and distribution, outmigration, survival, and adult returns for spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead. A large number of habitat restoration projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha River basins use the project for monitoring information. The Fish and Wildlife Program relies on this monitoring project to assist the regional Umbrella project by providing specific monitoring information for specific habitat restoration projects. This project also provides specific information to the Grande Ronde Model Watershed that it then uses to evaluate basin-scale responses to restoration actions.

Unfortunately, the proposal does not document the overall outcomes from the project and does not describe the implications for basin-scale restoration or status and trends of spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead, provide specific objectives, or explain the specific uses for the monitoring data in detail. These issues were raised in prior ISRP reviews. The proponents’ responses have not produced a summary of the achievements thus far or how the data are used in the projects being served.

Considering the project’s central importance for understanding trends and sustaining Chinook and steelhead populations in the Grande Ronde region, the monitoring activities are essential. Nevertheless, the proposal for activities during the next phase is incomplete and lacks several required sections, an explanation of Progress to Date, as well as tables and appendices referred to in the text. Further, climate change and accelerating land use are never mentioned as serious confounding factors, and guiding scientific concepts are not apparent. The proponents must provide a complete revised proposal for review with detailed responses to specific requests from the ISRP. This project is nearing its third decade, and a scientifically rigorous proposal and synthesis are essential for the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins and the Fish and Wildlife Program overall.

The ISRP requests the proponents to participate in the development of an M&E matrix and to address the following points in a revised proposal and to provide a brief point-by-point response to explain how and where each issue is addressed in the revised proposal:

1. Goals and SMART objectives. Develop specific goals for this project, ones aligned to a complete set of SMART objectives (see proposal instructions).
2. Application of data for standard fish habitat monitoring methods. Clarify how the data are being used to help implement a standard set of fish habitat monitoring methods in select watersheds of the Columbia River basin.
3. Application of data for Columbia River Basin evaluation. Explain how the data will be used to evaluate the quantity and quality of tributary fish habitat available to salmonids across the Columbia River Basin, as indicated in the proposal.
4. Use of IMWs and CHaMP. Clarify the confusion about the use of IMWs (implementing a tributary habitat action effectiveness strategy) and CHaMP (systematic habitat status and trends) in this project.
5. Data analysis and management. Describe the methods and strategies for data analyses, data management, and data sharing protocols. Indicate the specific responsibilities of the new data analyst for data analyses, life cycle modeling, and preparation of a comprehensive synthesis of fish and wildlife responses to previous restoration actions.
6. SIM guidance and application. Describe how the SIM provides temporal guidance for where and when to aggregate implementation projects and provide an illustrative example.
7. Timeline for project period. Provide a comprehensive timeline in terms of tasks and years.
8. Responses to previous ISRP qualifications. Describe how the project has responded to qualifications from previous ISRP reviews. Provide detailed responses or documentation of previous responses to each qualification.
9. 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. The proponents of the Grande Ronde Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring Project and the GRMW recognize that more analysis and synthesis are needed. As requested in the ISRP review of the GRMW Synthesis Report, the final synthesis should contain a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of restoration actions to restore fish and wildlife, as well as how the GRMW project has addressed limiting factors for key life stages. The Life Cycle Monitoring Project is expected to provide much of the essential data as well as much of the landscape level synthesis and life cycle modeling to establish the benefits to fish and wildlife. Consequently, 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 Grande Ronde Salmonid Life Cycle Monitoring Project has an overall goal to investigate the habitat and ecology of spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha River subbasins. Specific goals are not presented in the proposal but should be developed as a framework for aligning goals with a series of objectives. The objectives in the proposal are essentially implementation objectives for the monitoring effort. While the ISRP has encountered similar types of objectives in other basin monitoring projects and specific SMART biological and physical objectives may be evident in regional recovery plans and some habitat restoration projects, generally monitoring projects only provide information about basin characteristics and trends in targeted fish populations and habitat. Nonetheless, basin-scale RM&E projects, such as the Life Cycle Project, are expected to develop more specific and semi-quantitative objectives, such as numbers, locations, and geographic extent of monitoring locations, specific quantitative inputs to models (e.g., Catherine Creek life cycle model), and information required by regional biological strategies. Revising objectives to be more quantitative would make assessment of the project’s achievements simpler and more informative.

The outcome of the activities appears to be the data collected. However, the proponents allude (p. 4) to the data being used to cooperate with the implementation of a standard set of fish habitat monitoring methods in select watersheds of the Columbia River Basin. They indicate that the fish habitat monitoring methods have been developed to capture habitat features driving fish population dynamics. In addition, the proponents state that the 26 selected watersheds maximize the contrast in current habitat conditions and represent a temporal gradient of expected change in condition through planned habitat actions. However, they do not indicate where this is documented or who is funding the activity. They also indicate that data from this project will be used to evaluate the quantity and quality of tributary fish habitat available to salmonids across the Columbia River Basin, but no reference or further information is provided. The proponents also indicate involvement in implementing a tributary habitat action effectiveness strategy across the Columbia River basin (p. 4) using Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW). However, they have recently deleted the IMW from their strategy in favor of another approach (see p. 34). All of these issues should be clarified in a revised proposal to clarify the collective confusion about how the project is contributing to these efforts.

The proposal also states that CHaMP will result in systematic habitat status and trends information. The information will be used to assess basin-wide habitat condition and correlated with biological response indicators to evaluate habitat management strategies. The proposal describes support for CHaMP collaborators, which is confusing because CHaMP has been discontinued. The “TABLE” referred to in the text on page 5, as well as all other tables cited in the proposal, are not included in the proposal. The text may be residual unintended text from prior proposals or documents, but an explanation is required for the ISRP to understand what is being described and what role the project plays in the effort.

Q2: Methods

The project has thoroughly documented the methods in previous reports, in MonitoringResources.org, and in this proposal. The described methods appear acceptable and well suited to the specific activities. Specific calculations are adequately described. Note, however, that methods and strategies for data analyses are not described, nor are data management and sharing protocols.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The project participates actively and effectively in the adaptive evaluation processes in the Grande Ronde basin and regional management programs. Their work with the Grande Ronde Model Watershed, the Atlas, the GRMW database, CRITFC, Comparative Survival Study, NOAA life cycle models, and many other regional programs is exemplary. The review and adjustment processes are strengths of the program, as is the level of dissemination and outreach that is occurring under this RM&E project.

An illustrative example would have been useful to understand how the SIM provides temporal guidance for where and when to aggregate implementation projects. The ISRP is not sure how aggregating these projects (where possible) in a more temporally compressed fashion allows the proponents to structure monitoring to most effectively detect changes.

Some very general information was provided in the section on Relationships to Other Projects, but it was not enough to assess the how these data from this project are actually supporting the implementation of restoration or otherwise informing decisions.

The proposal does not adequately address potential confounding factors, especially those that could affect future monitoring effectiveness and success of salmon and steelhead recovery programs. It briefly mentions a list of factors (i.e., predation from birds and warm water fishes, point and non-point source pollution, the unique hydrography of the spring run-off due to the state ditch and its relationship to Catherine Creek) but provides little or no further discussion or explanation. As well, while detecting change in stream temperature and quantitatively incorporating it into assessments of salmonid population productivity in freshwater is important, it is not clear how the proponents are incorporating these data into the assessments. An illustrative example would improve the ISRP’s understanding of the project’s future approach to existing and emerging confounding factors.

The ISRP commends the proponents for publishing monitoring results, using the Grande Ronde as a case study (White et al. 2021).

The timeline is truncated in terms of tasks and years but should include all major elements of the project and the full time period for the proposed work elements.

Some very general information was provided in the section on Relationships to Other Projects, but it was not enough to assess the how these data from this project are actually supporting the implementation of restoration or otherwise informing decisions.

The proposal does not adequately address potential confounding factors, especially those that could affect future monitoring effectiveness and success of salmon and steelhead recovery programs. It briefly mentions a list of factors (i.e., predation from birds and warm water fishes, point and non-point source pollution, the unique hydrography of the spring run-off due to the state ditch and its relationship to Catherine Creek) but provides little or no further discussion or explanation. As well, while detecting change in stream temperature and quantitatively incorporating it into assessments of salmonid population productivity in freshwater is important, it is not clear how the proponents are incorporating these data into the assessments. An illustrative example would improve the ISRP’s understanding of the project’s future approach to existing and emerging confounding factors.

The ISRP commends the proponents for publishing monitoring results, using the Grande Ronde as a case study (White et al. 2021).

The timeline is truncated in terms of tasks and years but should include all major elements of the project and the full time period for the proposed work elements.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

This project produces essential monitoring data for the Fish and Wildlife Program, life cycle models, VSP assessments, SARs assessments, and regional biological strategies. The project has been productive, producing eight peer-reviewed publications and several informative annual reports from 2016 to 2021. However, the proposal simply provides 12 pages of graphs of trend data for the Grande Ronde and Imnaha basins with no discussion or explanation. These essentially are provided in previous annual reports, publications, and proposals. Unfortunately, the proposal does not synthesize the information nor describe the biological relevance for targeted populations in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins. The project should explain the trends in spawner abundance and distribution, smolt abundance, smolts-per-spawner, smolt survival, life history characteristics (age, size, timing of migration), juvenile abundance and distribution, and habitat characteristics, as well as the relationships between these trends, rather than just inserting a series of graphs without text or discussion.

The 2010 ISRP Review called for these analyses and evaluations of trends and success of supplementation.

This project produces essential monitoring data for the Fish and Wildlife Program, life cycle models, VSP assessments, SARs assessments, and regional biological strategies. The project has been productive, producing eight peer-reviewed publications and several informative annual reports from 2016 to 2021. However, the proposal simply provides 12 pages of graphs of trend data for the Grande Ronde and Imnaha basins with no discussion or explanation. These essentially are provided in previous annual reports, publications, and proposals. Unfortunately, the proposal does not synthesize the information nor describe the biological relevance for targeted populations in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha subbasins. The project should explain the trends in spawner abundance and distribution, smolt abundance, smolts-per-spawner, smolt survival, life history characteristics (age, size, timing of migration), juvenile abundance and distribution, and habitat characteristics, as well as the relationships between these trends, rather than just inserting a series of graphs without text or discussion.

The 2010 ISRP Review called for these analyses and evaluations of trends and success of supplementation.

“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.”

This proposal, as well as previous reports, continue to lack narrative interpretation and discussion of the project’s data. How do their data inform the region about limiting factors and effectiveness of past management actions? Has the supplementation program been successful? In cases where populations are declining, does that mean that supplementation and restoration have been ineffective, or would the declines have been worse without these actions? While the information is valuable by itself, a program in operation since 1994 should have provided comprehensive analyses and interpretations and offered suggestions as to how the trends might be reversed.

These same syntheses were also requested as part of the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Synthesis. The ISRP concluded that the Synthesis that was eventually produced did not provide evidence that “actions and associated changes in the physical habitat have contributed to addressing limiting factors.” This project produces the most relevant data to assess the contribution of past restoration actions to reducing the effects of limiting factors, but the proposal provides no evidence of such progress. It is clear from their role in regional assessments and peer-reviewed publications that they are conducting rigorous monitoring, but they have not told the story of what it means, either in this proposal or in an overall synthesis. Given the long history of the project and its valuable data, a complete and coherent proposal and a comprehensive synthesis are critical.

Overall, the responses to comments from previous ISRP reviews are meager. Many central issues and questions from previous reviews are not addressed, in spite of the wealth of information and synthetic collaborations with other projects (e.g., life cycle models, landscape assessments). This needs to be rectified in the very near future.

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.