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.

This is a well-written proposal for a project with a long history of critical data acquisition and adaptive changes to increase information and understanding about steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project provides information on population-level survival, productivity, and life history data that is useful for assessing effects of habitat conditions, and restoration and hatchery programs. Of particular interest to the ISRP are the data which show declining smolts-per-female spawner with increasing female escapement (Fig. 3) and the interpretation of it that freshwater habitat is sufficiently seeded (p. 9). The proponents take the interpretation further, suggesting that supplementing the natural population with hatchery-origin fish may not have been an appropriate management strategy. This is a great example of interpreting M&E data to the point where it can be used by decision-makers.

However, as the data indicate that spawner numbers are not limiting juvenile production, then there should be a sufficient number of natural origin spawners to supply all the broodstock for the hatchery. Thus, the ISRP found it surprising that the hatchery program was using some hatchery origin returns for broodstock. Clearly, this program is providing lots of useful information for decision-makers, though some of the decisions regarding hatchery production appear to be ignoring some of the findings presented in the proposal.

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 Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (199000501) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. 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 section on goals and objectives was brief and some were not specific enough. Stating objectives using the SMART format would be helpful and should be presented in the next round of proposal reviews and annual reports. For Objective 4 for example, how the diversity of steelhead will be assessed is unclear. Also, for Objective 5, it is not clear how or when this this will be accomplished.

Q2: Methods

The methods are generally sound, but there are four areas for potential improvement.

Smolt run size is estimated by a series of independent closed-abundance estimates for each period (sampling interval). The length of each period was not specified in the proposal (except for TMF where it is one month), and the ISRP is concerned about the assumption that all marked fish pass the trap during the interval and/or that capture probability is constant over the interval. If this is not the case, capture probability and abundance estimates will be biased. To what extent have these assumptions been tested? If the length of the interval has increased to meet the passage assumption, is it likely that capture probability is not constant over the longer period?

A more flexible approach would be to use the Bonner and Schwarz (2011 and 2014, BT SPAS R library) time-stratified estimator. This model can be useful when recaptures for some periods are sparse, or when the trap(s) cannot be operated due to high flows (e.g., Fig. 6 of Hanson et al. 2020), and allows for finer temporal intervals that may lead to more accurate estimates of abundance and run timing. This approach avoids problems with arbitrary pooling of data across periods that is needed if sample sizes are low or trapping is not conducted over some periods.

Given the intense effort to mark fish and trap smolts, this analytical upgrade seems well worth it. The precision of smolt run size estimates at TMFD is very high (CVs 1995-2018 =5.4%) and may be an artifact of the analytical procedure (too much pooling). A better model may be more useful in Birch Creek where there are few strata which cover long periods where capture probability is unlikely to be constant as currently assumed (Table 7 of Hanson et al. 2020). Improved estimates of smolt run size at Birch Creek will lead to improved estimates of survival to TMF, which is highly relevant given concerns about survival rates in low-flow years. See Bonner and Schwartz (2011), Bonner and Schwartz (2014), and Hanson et al. (2020) for possible analytical approaches.

Egg deposition estimates could be improved by using a fork length-fecundity relationship rather than age-specific fecundity average. This would better account for the decreasing size and age-at-return that has been seen in many Chinook populations over the last decade or more (e.g., Lewis et al. 2015).

Would it be possible to develop a corrected SAR value that accounts for losses from fisheries? This would allow for better evaluation of effects of downstream/upstream mainstem passage or marine survival. Currently these effects are confounded with changes in exploitation rate.

Would it be possible to calculate the variance on the hatchery:natural ratio using the same binomial likelihood described for the smolt analysis? This error could be substantial for some tributaries where few spawners are observed or where the presence/absence of an adipose fin is difficult to distinguish.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal provides very little information on how effects of hatchery supplementation, flow, and habitat improvements on smolt run size or juvenile survival rates will be quantified. We suggest fitting a Ricker model with covariates:

log(R/S) = a + b*S + d*X

where R is the number of smolts from brood year t, S is egg deposition or female escapement that produced those smolts, a is the log of productivity (R/S when there is no density dependence because S is 0), b is a density-dependent effect, X is a covariate such as flow or some measure of habitat restoration, and d is the coefficient for the covariate (the strength of the effect per unit increase in X). Another covariate to assess could be pHOS, though it could also be included through adjustment of S via,

S = S*(1-pHOS) + S*pHOS*e

where the first group of terms on the right side of the equation is the contribution of eggs or females from natural origin spawners, the second group of terms is the contribution from hatchery-origin fish where “e” is the estimated effect of hatchery-origin fish on survival from egg-smolt. Essentially S is a weighted average spawner abundance, that accounts for reduced spawning success or lower survival rates of juvenile fish produced from hatchery-origin spawners. It may be challenging to estimate e, depending on the extent of variation in pHOS and survival rates over time.

Survival rates between release locations could be evaluated using

log(Surv) = b0 +b1*X

where b0 and b1 are estimated and X is the covariate to be evaluated.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal provides an excellent summary of the many project actions, what was learned from the results, and how the objectives and actions were modified as a result. It also provides information about how these results have influenced management and informed other projects that are closely aligned. The results have contributed to broader efforts in status and trend monitoring, and can be used in future life-cycle modeling.

One key problem in the subbasin is that both habitat restoration and hatchery supplementation affect steelhead abundance and survival in the Umatilla River, and so the effects are confounded. The proponents propose tributary-specific monitoring to allow separating the effects of these actions, and this is a high priority for funding.

References

Bonner, S.J. and Schwarz, C.J. 2014. BTSPAS: Bayesian Time Stratified Petersen Analysis System. R package version 2014.0901.

Bonner, S.J. and Schwarz, C.J. 2011. Smoothed estimates for time-stratified mark-recapture experiments using a Bayesian P-spline approach. Biometrics 67:1498-1507.

Hanson, J.T. Jewett, S.M. and S. Remple. 2020. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid outmigration and survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin. 2019 Annual Report BPA Project #1989-024-01.

Lewis, B., W.S. Grant, R.E. Brenner, and T. Hamazaki. 2015. Changes in size and age of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha returning to Alaska. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0130184.

Ohlberger, J., E.J. Ward, D.E. Schindler, and B. Lewis. 2018. Demographic changes in Chinook salmon across the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Fish and Fisheries 19:533-546.

In our preliminary review, we asked the proponents to lead the development of an M&E Matrix for the John Day River basin. The ISRP appreciates the proponents’ leadership, constructive response, and thorough summary of monitoring activities in the John Day River subbasin, for both their project and other collaborating projects. In many ways, the summary of monitoring and evaluation, matrix of monitoring activities, and maps of monitoring locations provided for the John Day River basin is an excellent example of cooperation among projects and identification of collaborative monitoring and evaluation in a geographic area that the ISRP envisioned in our request for M&E matrices.

In the revised proposal, the proponents provide an initial map and table illustrating the relationships between implementation actions and monitoring. The revised proposal thoroughly describes the project’s monitoring activities, includes maps of the locations of all monitoring actions, and provides a matrix of the structured implementation and monitoring plan for three John Day River steelhead populations. The proponents collaboratively developed a table of implementation projects associated with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Focused Investment Partnership (Table 8). For each project, the table identifies the restoration strategy, monitoring tier, type of monitoring (implementation, effectiveness), potential metrics, use of drone monitoring, and project responsible for monitoring. They plan to incorporate the figure and table in ongoing annual reports to BPA. The revised proposal includes a preliminary map of implementation projects and associated monitoring in the John Day River basin. The map distinguishes the type of monitoring as implementation, effectiveness, or fish-in and fish-out for fish population productivity. The proposal also summarizes linkages between implementation projects and monitoring efforts in the North Fork John Day and Middle Fork John Day rivers. Basically, the proponents provided initial information on all aspects of M&E that the ISRP requested in the Response Loop. Their M&E matrix and summary could be used as an example for other geographic areas.

The proponents responded to the ISRP’s question about quantifying the effects of both flow and temperature and representing these factors in the model for the Middle Fork spring Chinook salmon population and indicated they agreed that it would be beneficial to update and extend these analyses. Given the importance of both flow and stream temperature as limiting factors in the John Day River basin, the ISRP encourages the project to continue their efforts to understand and model the effects of flow and temperature on spawner recruitment.

The ISRP repeats from its preliminary review that this is an exemplary project and is a model for other M&E projects.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

The John Day River Salmonid Monitoring project is a status and trends study that has received positive reviews from the ISRP since its inception. The John Day River basin is one of the few basins in the interior Columbia region that has had no recent hatchery releases; however, straying from Snake River populations is a major concern. The project steadily has improved its experimental design and refined its field methods and analyses. Its data are critical for regional management, and the project is closely integrated with key management plans and habitat restoration projects. The proposal provides a thorough literature review, with much appreciated hyperlinks to key papers and reports. This is an exemplary project and is a model for other M&E projects.

The ISRP requests a response from this project to provide the following information:

• M&E matrix - lead. Provide a summary of linkages between the monitoring conducted and the implementation projects in the John Day River basin. 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.

The ISRP is requesting a response from this project to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. The summary should provide a table or matrix that specifically identifies what is being monitored for each implementation project, as well as 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 of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. 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 all relevant implementation projects to assist your project in producing this summary. In particular, the John Day Partnership recently hired Nick Bouwes to help map and coordinate their M&E efforts, and they will be asked to assist.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal clearly identifies four major goals for the monitoring and evaluation, and identifies key management questions addressed by the monitoring and analyses. Quantitative implementation objectives are identified for each major goal. There are no SMART objectives for physical or biological outcomes, but these are not directly relevant for an M&E project designed to provide critical data and analyses for the region and for habitat projects therein. The project generates information used by multiple projects in the John Day River basin and the region, and the activities appear to be well coordinated.

Q2: Methods

The ISRP has reviewed the proponents’ methods previously and has found them to be scientifically rigorous and excellent examples of Tier 2 statistical monitoring at the subbasin scale. The project continues to refine and strengthen their methods. They combined probabilistic sampling for steelhead populations and census sampling for adult Chinook populations. Their data are stored in regional databases and are incorporated into regional planning and evaluation. When BPA budget cuts prevented them from continuing their monitoring for certain population and habitat parameters, they obtained external funding for some measurements. Most notably, they obtained alternative funding for Chinook escapement assessments, which allowed them to continue to estimate SARs, a critical need for the Fish and Wildlife Program. They have used a spatial model (Falke et al. 2013) to provide quantitative predictions of redd occurrence probability and probability of spawning at a landscape scale. This information provides an important context for planning and prioritizing restoration actions.

The proposal thoroughly describes study designs, field and laboratory methods, and analytical procedures. Methods, data, sampling locations, and metadata are located in NRIMP, MonitoringResources.org, and Annual Reports. The ISRP appreciates the thorough descriptions of the methods.

The proposal includes a Gantt chart to describe the general operations of the project monthly for 2023 through 2025. While this helps reviewers understand general distribution of the project efforts through time, it does not provide information on the subcomponents of the project. This information should be provided in annual reports and work plans.

In the Survival, Age Structure, and Productivity portion of the Methods section, the proponents mention that environmental covariates and restoration metrics can be incorporated into the models with more time series data. Given the changes in temperature and flow occurring throughout the basin and the tremendous effort going into restoration activities throughout the basin, this is especially critical. Quantifying effects of these factors on fish will be key to manage for future conditions and ensure that restoration is effective. Could the authors attempt to run models that include these factors now, even if results are preliminary? If not, when do the authors anticipate that enough data will be available?

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal describes a thorough adaptive management process based on regularly scheduled internal meetings, annual reports, and consultation with BPA. They also describe a formal process of meeting with the John Day Basin Partnership to inform habitat restoration planning and implementation. Their explanation is much more complete than that provided by other related projects in the Partnership.

It is less clear what triggers modifications to the program. How are changes to the project proposed and implemented? For example, the proposal mentions the need for more information on bull trout migration, possible challenges due to increasing numbers of invasive smallmouth bass, and changing climate, including asynchronous hydrology between the Columbia River and the John Day River. What prompts a redirection of the project to better account for these factors? Does each component have a “threshold of probable concern” that would result in changes to the activities? If so, what are they? As well, when is each action deemed successful, and when is it not?

The proposal also describes potential confounding factors related to climate change and expansion of nonnative predators. Rather than simply identifying and discussing the nature of these confounding factors, they present studies they are currently implementing to address these confounding factors and develop methods to implement and assess future management actions. They also have developed an approach for identifying coldwater refuges that could serve as the basis for habitat protection and restoration in the face of climate change. Equally importantly, they are conducting experiments to determine whether smallmouth bass predation is additive or compensatory, a complex and important question in the Columbia River Basin at this point.

The proponents provide an excellent description of their responses to past Council recommendations and ISRP reviews. They have responded positively and creatively to past suggestions, making improvements that exceed recommendations from the ISRP. This constructive communication between the proponents and the ISRP is an example of how the scientific review process is intended to function.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal provided 13 pages with informative tables and figures of past progress and outcomes to benefit fish and wildlife from the project since 2000. The proponents identified the importance of this information for management decisions within the Columbia River Basin and groups that are using their information for conservation and restoration actions. They clearly have identified lessons learned from their results and how they are being used for management. The indirect benefits of his project are large as this project strongly contributes to status and trend monitoring for steelhead and Chinook salmon, life-cycle models, regional actions, and management of the hydrosystem.

This project has a good track record and is managed by qualified scientists. It will contribute useful information for managing adaptively within the John Day subbasin. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The technical justification and scientific background was reasonably thorough. There appear to be two major topic areas in this work. First, there is evidence that straying of hatchery Chinook salmon and steelhead into the John Day River system is adding to the difficulty of determining the status and trends of naturally produced fish in this (primarily) wild fish production subbasin, and there is the possibility that interbreeding of wild and hatchery fish may be contributing to a loss of fitness among naturally spawning and rearing stocks. This project proposes to extend the existing genetic monitoring program to further assess the significance of straying of Chinook and steelhead from hatcheries in other subbasins into the John Day River's natural production areas. Second, the project proposes to expand the aquatic and riparian habitat status and trend monitoring efforts. This is of interest because of the strong emphasis on habitat restoration in the John Day subbasin. The project is consistent with a number of RPAs in the BiOp and with other programmatic emphasis areas in the region. The approach is clearly spelled out, and the ISRP appreciates that the project proponents have responded directly to our suggestions from previous reviews and incorporated them into this plan. The proposal references specific recommendations from the RPA workshop and identifies the RPAs in the BiOp that the work will address. Additional linkages are given to the John Day subbasin plan and to the Council's Fish & Wildlife Program. The 2008 FCRPS BiOp identified the Upper John Day as a priority subbasin for recovery of the Mid-Columbia steelhead DPS. The John Day River is an important reference subbasin for comparisons to other anadromous stocks in more highly impacted subbasins of the Columbia River. Further, the John Day is unique among Columbia River subbasins because its Chinook and steelhead populations have had little influence from hatchery introductions. The project, initiated in 1998, is one of the more extensive monitoring and evaluation programs in the Columbia River Basin. The proposed work is consistent with the monitoring needs identified by the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, the BiOp, and the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The project also directly addresses several important needs specified in the John Day Subbasin Plan. 2. Project History and Results The project’s history is thoroughly described, including tables summarizing results of the previous nine years of work in this project. The maps were very helpful, although most of the material referred to existing redd count, adult holding areas, and genetic sampling. It would also have been useful to have included maps or tables describing the locations of significant habitat restoration projects (perhaps by category, if available) and sites where there are records of juvenile salmonid presence-absence or abundance, because these are included in this project's objectives. The project has generated much information on smolt production and adult escapement. The discussion of results could have been improved if the proponents would have discussed how the results to date have influenced management decisions. For example, what useful information was derived from the stock-recruitment relationship? 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The objectives and work elements are generally complete and appropriate. Several questions did arise in reviewing this section: 1) Obj. 1 Are 4000 PIT tags enough to estimate SAR given the relatively few adults that will be produced from this number of smolts? 2) Obj. 1 Is a 100% detection of PIT tagged adults at the FCRPS PIT tag facilities a reasonable assumption? 3) Obj. 2 How does one obtain cost-free flight time for redd surveys? 4) Obj. 4 If habitat assessments are conducted only on channels 5th order and smaller, will some areas potentially used by Chinook for spawning or rearing be excluded? 5) Obj. 4 Ignoring fast-water habitat when snorkeling could lead to some error in estimating abundance if a substantial proportion of the populations using fat-water habitat. This is not likely to be a problem for Chinook but could be for steelhead. Could several fast-water habitats in each sample area be electro-fished to address this problem? The two elements for which Fast-Track review were requested (Chinook portion of Obj. 2 and Obj. 6) were very complete. Three of the five work objectives apply to ongoing efforts by the project's proponents, and two objectives (habitat status and trends, juvenile salmonid monitoring) have been called for by the ISRP but not yet funded. The objective of operating the rotary screw traps from October 1 to May 31 is admirable, but mechanical problems, weather-related issues, and other unforeseen problems will inevitably occur. It would be useful to state what back-up equipment and procedures are in place to deal with such events. The spawner escapement estimation procedures were thoroughly described, and the project proponents have a lot of experience in this aspect of the work effort. It was nice to see that the proposed 2010 surveys will include some randomly selected reaches to check for Chinook salmon spawning range expansions. The ISRP wonders if any research has been done to determine the error rate for identifying hatchery fish based on adipose fin clipping in the John Day or nearby subbasins. What is the probability of mis-identifying a hatchery fish with an imperfect adipose clip, or a wild fish that has lost part of its adipose fin? The location of the habitat survey sites will be determined by a GRTS (EMAP-type) randomized design. While there will be some inevitable compromises due to landowner access issues, we wonder if there is any value in intentionally locating some of the habitat survey sites at (1) the same locations as the spawning index sites or the juvenile survey reaches, or (2) within or near riparian or channel restoration projects. We agree that the GRTS approach is appropriate for assessing overall habitat status and trends within the subbasin, but additional and very useful information might be gained by co-locating the habitat survey sites with sites where fish will be censused either as spawners or juveniles. Within the list of habitat attributes, we recommend expanding the surveys of large trees (>0.5 m DBH) to all species, not just conifers. Owing to past logging practices and wildfire history there are very few conifers of this size within 30 m of the stream channel throughout much of the John Day subbasin, but there are other species (in particular, black cottonwood) that meet this size criterion. While it is true that cottonwood will not persist as long in the streams, it is currently the best candidate for LWD recruitment. To estimate escapement of Chinook and steelhead from redd counts, the proponents propose to use data on fish/redd from another subbasin. This approach seems reasonable given that weirs are not present in the John Day to enumerate the number of adults potentially spawning above the weirs. Why are there no weirs in John Day tributaries? Steelhead redds will be enumerated in five tributaries thought to support independent populations. From this information subbasin escapement will be estimated. Why not estimate redd densities and escapement for each of the five tributaries (populations) rather than just for the subbasin as a whole? This approach could provide greater resolution and information about redd and escapement levels especially if the tributaries differ significantly in quality and quantity of spawning habitat. For Objective 3, pertaining to habitat status and trend monitoring, are any of the sample sites likely to be in reaches where restoration activities have taken place? How will data analysis deal with information from both sites where habitat enhancement has been implemented and sites that have not been treated? Will there be an attempt to distinguish between the two in analyses? Water temperature and thermal refugia are not being monitored. Is availability of cool water during summer not a limiting factor in the John Day basin? For Objective 4, will juvenile sampling be concurrent with habitat sampling? Estimation of juvenile abundance will be based upon snorkel counts of juveniles in pools. Pools will be ranked according to a visibility rating. Pools ranked 0 or 1 (poor visibility, high amount of hiding cover) will not be used in data analysis if the reach also contains pools ranked 2 and/or 3 (moderate to little hiding cover, good visibility). However, if all pools within a reach are ranked < 2, then the pools will be electrofished rather than snorkeled. This could introduce bias because for some reaches pools ranked 0 or 1 (probably the best fish habitat) will be excluded from analysis while in others (electrofished reaches) they will be included and, further, the reach data may not be comparable because two different methods of estimating fish density were employed (snorkel and electrofish). Density estimates of electrofished reaches may be greater than those of snorkeled reaches both because better quality habitat is being sampled and electrofishing may be a more effective way of counting fish. Why not electrofish all reaches and eliminate the potential problem? 4. M&E The M&E program proposed by this project has been carefully planned and well conducted to this point. The proposed additions to the ongoing M&E effort (Chinook and steelhead escapement, habitat and juvenile monitoring, genetic characterizations) would round out the program and provide much needed additional information. As in the past, the ISRP supports both juvenile and habitat monitoring to identify productive rearing habitats, establish quantitative relationships between habitat quantity and quality and juvenile abundance and distribution, quantify limiting factors for juvenile survival, and guide habitat enhancement actions.

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.

The ISRP’s comments were addressed in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. The response was thorough and gave frank consideration of issues raised by ISRP. The proponents provided detailed answers to ISRP questions and comments that clarified issues concerning the M&E program, especially the IMW project.

The proponents provided a reasonable justification for the design of the IMW project, which involves comparison between two treatment streams and a reference stream to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration in the treatment streams. Although the proponents argued that the treatment and reference streams were physiographically and biologically similar enough to provide valid results when compared, they were forthright and objective in discussing the limitations of the design, limitations that likely will be common to many future IMW projects.

Given the differences among the treatment and reference tributaries in many biological and physical habitat features, and past management actions, the strongest comparisons may be Before-After comparisons within tributaries in response to habitat restoration. Additional comparisons among tributaries that depend on similar "background" effects of supplementation can be made, but regression analysis using key covariates may be a more useful approach, as the proponents suggest.

One of the limitations of concern to the ISRP is the uncertainty of the degree of hatchery influence which could affect comparability of the treatment and reference streams. Another potential problem is that habitat restoration actions in the treatment streams have been ongoing for some time. The effects of these actions will continue beyond the initiation of the IMW project making it difficult to separate biological and habitat responses resulting from pre-treatment habitat enhancement actions from those occurring post-treatment, after project initiation. This residual effect of pre-treatment actions may complicate before-after comparisons. Finally, given the extent of habitat degradation in the treatment streams, will the proposed restoration actions in these streams, especially Meacham Creek, be great enough to produce a significant, detectable biological response? The proponents should consider how they will deal with these problems analytically or through modification of their design.

This project proposes status and trend monitoring of ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead and Chinook salmon, and collaboration in an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project intended to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in two tributaries of the Umatilla. Work related to status and trends monitoring in Objectives 1-4 meets scientific criteria. A response is needed that expands, clarifies, and provides more detail concerning the IMW project and Objective 5. The study design needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams needs to be provided. Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. Overall, this is a thorough proposal for continuation of a centrally important project in the Umatilla Basin. The investigators describe a highly integrated project to collect critical data on production and survival of wild steelhead and spring and fall Chinook salmon. This project could provide critical data to assess whether the habitat restoration projects in the Umatilla River basin are effective in increasing abundance, survival, and productivity of naturally-spawning steelhead and salmon. In addition, it provides key data to determine the success of the new integrated hatchery supplementation program, whereby separate groups of Conservation and Harvest smolts are produced. These data are necessary to determine if the integrated hatchery program is contributing to the recovery of steelhead and salmon, or just another factor leading to their demise (or no change is detected). 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The project is consistent with many regional programs and projects including the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program and the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan. It addresses several RPAs in the BiOp. This work is of great significance to regional programs, because it provides critical data to assess how natural populations of steelhead and two life history types of Chinook are responding to a variety of conditions, including in-river habitat, flow, migration corridors, and ocean conditions. Without it, little will be known about the performance of the newly created Conservation groups of salmon and steelhead. The proposal includes status and trends monitoring and a new Intensively Monitored Watershed project. The main goal of the Umatilla IMW project is to determine whether habitat enhancement results in higher abundance, survival, and productivity of natural spawned steelhead and salmon. A confusing aspect of the proposal is that several of the objectives and deliverables include work related to both status and trends monitoring as well as to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation. The objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work should be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. Several projects are addressing components of the IMW work, although this project seems to have the bulk of the responsibility for its conduct. Dividing the work among projects makes scientific evaluation of the IMW effort difficult. Why was the IMW work not consolidated in a single proposal? 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This project has been ongoing in various forms since 1994, but underwent an extensive review in 2006 by the ISRP. It was restarted in 2009, after reformulating goals. This proposal is characterized by carefully planned sampling designs for the redd surveys and juvenile abundance in tributaries, and for habitat monitoring. The project can point to various results that have allowed managers to make important decisions based on the data that was collected. Based upon the results presented, the project appears to have been productive and has accomplished it objectives since it inception in 1994. Data collected through this project are critical for monitoring salmon and steelhead populations in the basin. A notable conclusion drawn from data analysis was that “habitat enhancement has not resulted in a significant improvement for summer steelhead and that the system may be at capacity for production of the species.” The negative relationship between smolts/female and number of females supports this conclusions and suggests that density-dependence may be affecting smolt survival. This conclusion is tentative but it argues for a more rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in the Umatilla Basin, which the proponents propose to undertake. In addressing adaptive management, the proponents indicate that the information they obtained has assisted with management decisions and provide some examples. They did not specifically address how their project has changed based on previous results. However, their decision to participate in CHaMP is indicative of their willingness to shift the direction of the project. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proposed project is one of four collaborative BPA funded projects aimed at monitoring the status and trends of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project is tied to several other BPA funded projects in the Umatilla Basin. It also relates to several other IMW projects in the Columbia Basin that are collaborating in the development and implementation of CHaMP. In particular, this project and another in-basin project (1990-050-01; Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E) are cooperating in conducting the IMW habitat evaluation in the Umatilla. Some discussion of the new C & H / Integrated Segregated hatchery production scheme would have been helpful, but it seems that the proposed project, without explicitly discussing it, will deal with it effectively. In addressing emerging factors the proponents make the general statement that the data collected by this project could assist in determination of fish population response to emerging threats but do not offer anything more specific. Climate change and predation by birds and native and non-native fish predators are key emerging limiting factors which are dealt with in other proposals. It will be important to determine how this project can link with those data, such as estimating loss of this DPS of steelhead from Caspian tern and cormorant predation at the mouth of the Columbia River. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods This proposal has components pertaining to both routine status and trend monitoring and evaluation of habitat effectiveness under the IMW program. Methods and metrics for assessing status and trends in Objectives 1-4 are fairly standard and are appropriate for this type of work. The ISRP views positively the proponent’s willingness to engage in rigorous habitat effectiveness evaluation under the auspices of CHaMP and according to ISEMP protocols. Properly conducted, this evaluation could yield the most valuable information to date on effectiveness of habitat enhancement in the Umatilla Basin. Several issues, however, need clarification. Several objectives and deliverables (e.g., deliverables 4, 6, 9, and 10) in the proposal apparently include work related to both status and trends monitoring and to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation, complicating scientific review of the proposal. It would be helpful if the objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work could be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. The study design for the IMW project needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams should be provided. The proposed approach for evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat enhancement actions is to compare a control or reference stream with each of two treatment streams that have undergone habitat enhancement. A main difficulty is that appropriate treatment and control streams are difficult to find. The Upper Umatilla, a reference stream, receives supplementation, whereas Meacham Creek, a treatment stream, has been subject to habitat restoration and also is supplemented. Steelhead use both tributaries for spawning and rearing. Therefore, a comparison between these tributaries should yield information on the effectiveness of the habitat projects in Meacham Creek, assuming there is no interaction between the habitat work and supplementation, and other physical and biological differences between the tributaries are negligible. In contrast, Birch Creek, another treatment stream, receives no supplementation but connectivity and fish passage has been restored. Since the Upper Umatilla is supplemented, it is not an adequate control stream to compare with Birch Creek, although trend monitoring (i.e., before-after) can be conducted to assess changes. How will this apparent problem be resolved? The proponents need to deal with several other questions pertaining to the IMW project. How do the reference and treatment basins compare physiographically and biologically? The history of land use, habitat loss, and hatchery influence in reference and treatment tributaries should be summarized. What habitat restoration actions have been and will be implemented, and on what time frame? What is the fish distribution and abundance in these streams? Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. What metrics (fish and habitat) will be compared between treatment and reference basins to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions? Will the proponents be responsible for collection of habitat and fish data, data integration, and data analysis? What data will be collected by other projects? An extremely large amount of data will be collected. How will it be analyzed? It should be possible to use model selection to assess how, for example, smolt production relates to habitat restoration, by fitting models with and without this covariate. ISEMP proposes a long list of habitat variables that can be measured. How will the decision be made as to which of these variables are most important for this work?

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?

 

We are in agreement and are willing to cooperate closely with the PNAMP data workgroup to make our data more avaialble. We are in the process of hiring a database position for our program to support database development for all of our BPA contracts.

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.

This is a very thorough proposal with thorough methods that justify continuation. A history of the project to date was covered in detail in over ~ 20 pages. This project should assist in providing critical evaluation information to the set of Umatilla projects. And the ISRP encourages the proponent to publish results and observations in the formal fisheries literature. Monitoring and evaluation of smolt yields and survivals is the focus of the investigations. Some adaptive management is evident (e.g., steelhead releases moved to lower reaches), clearly indicating the benefits of this type of work.

The project should provide data on egg-to-smolt survival and/or smolts-per-spawner as a function of spawner density to augment the information provided in table 4 (p 33). This is the key response variable in monitoring population dynamics and towards evaluation of management actions.

There may also be a possibility, worth exploring, to collaborate with other tagging studies (e.g., POST), and to explore alternative methods for estimation of adults to relate smolt yields to spawner abundance more effectively.

See ISRP comments on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600.

This is a large and well-designed data collection project promising important information on key species in the basin. Strong benefits to anadromous and resident fish over the long term should result from ongoing monitoring of population status and trends and of habitat restoration effectiveness. This project is to continue monitoring in the sub-basin, identified as a priority watershed in the 2000 BiOp, to quantify status and trends of fish populations. Index sites identified in the 1960s are still monitored and the project has expanded beyond index sites to include census surveys of all known spawning habitat. The proposal is to quantify status and trends of Chinook and steelhead populations and their habitats in the sub-basin. Benefits to non-focal species could result from ongoing monitoring of population status and trends and of habitat restoration effectiveness. The trapping and surveys have the potential to provide considerable information on other species if planned properly. It would be useful to make certain that they see and gain these side benefits from the extensive (and expensive) sampling involved.

Previous data from the project have been used by NOAA's Technical Recovery Team. The project cooperates with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP), provides juvenile steelhead data to BOR research, data on bull trout to BPA project, smolt data to the Comparative Survival Studies, and habitat data to the Nature Conservancy. There is ongoing discussion of collaboration potential with other ODFW projects.

The proposers are well qualified and experienced for this work. The project's objectives are defined over monitoring areas (e.g. life-cycle metrics, spawner escapement, habitat) and tied to strategies of the SBP. Appropriate methods are described in detail for each objective and related to specific work elements with detailed deliverables and timelines. Appropriate literature is cited. The proposed probabilistic sampling and BACI experimental designs are linked to the Fish and Wildlife Program, ISRP recommendations, NOAA, BOR, and Streamnet database development, the 2000 BiOp RPAs for monitoring and the subbasin plan.

BACI is used to evaluate effectiveness of restoration activities. The proposal includes clear descriptions of sampling issues, history, and development of approaches. The proposal is weak on analysis procedures and how the data will be used to inform management activities (i.e., adaptive management). Strong collaborations in data provision and compliance monitoring mean that information is routinely transferred among collaborators. Information is also transferred through reports and provision of data to regional databases. Outreach publications and peer-reviewed journal articles may also be appropriate.

The budget seems high even for the fairly ambitious work planned.