This project provides important monitoring and evaluation data to partners in the Grande Ronde Basin Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP). Results from the project’s monitoring actions are designed to explicitly test numerous assumptions about the benefits and potential costs of using hatcheries as agents of salmonid conservation. Consequently, project findings are also of interest and value to other groups engaged in spring Chinook supplementation efforts throughout the Columbia Basin.

The proposal is well written and generally uses graphs and tables effectively to communicate prior results and plans for the next project period. Broadly, this is an important project that not only benefits spring Chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde basin but also produces information of interest to fishery managers throughout the Columbia River Basin.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans.

1. SMART objectives. Place expected time bounds on the implementation tasks (e.g., repetitive annual tasks, and one-time actions that may need several years to complete).

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. Describe the overall project adjustment process used by the project and specifically the process used to appraise its own actions to make any necessary changes to fieldwork protocols, data collection, analyses, etc.

3. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Project (199202601) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha geographic area. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored by this project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal clearly defines the primary purpose of the project—to help operate and evaluate whether a spring/summer Chinook supplementation program occurring in the Lostine River is meeting its four overall goals. Under each of the project’s four goals, the proponents list one to four general objectives. Altogether, ten general objectives are described. To determine if progress is being made in meeting these objectives, the proponents developed 27 questions that their monitoring effort is addressing. Forty-one specific implementation objectives were developed to answer the management and monitoring questions presented in the proposal. The ISRP commends the proponents for developing monitoring questions that are largely applicable and useful to salmonid supplementation projects throughout the Columbia River Basin. Additionally, results from the project’s previous monitoring efforts were presented along with lessons learned. The data, figures, and discussion in the proposal unambiguously show the value of the O&M and M&E work being done.

The project’s implementation objectives, however, are not presented in a SMART objective format. Many appear to be reoccurring annual tasks, but others, such as the creation of a population model specific to Lostine Chinook, will likely take longer to complete and are not on an annual cycle. Consequently, the ISRP is uncertain about when tasks will occur and be completed. We ask that the proponents indicate when each of their implementation tasks will be completed and whether they occur annually.

Q2: Methods

The proposal provides adequate general descriptions of the methods being employed. Standard and well-established protocols are followed when collecting field data. New field data are entered electronically and downloaded into databases for further analysis. A table in the proposal links the project’s implementation objectives to the MonitoringResources.org website, where further details on the methods are described.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Data and findings produced from the project are used by the GRESCSP in an adaptive management cycle. Cooperators in the GRESCSP (Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Umatilla tribes, ODFW, and USFWS) develop Annual Operating Plans that are informed and modified by project data. The proposal presents examples of the how the Lostine spring Chinook project has changed its operations due to monitoring results in the proposal’s “Lesson Learned” segments.

Several questions regarding how adaptive management proceeds, however, need to be addressed. First, does the project have its own internal adaptive management process? Seemingly, such a process would allow the proponents to regularly review whether specific tasks were performed as expected and if any changes in objectives or methods are needed. Second, the proposal lacks a general description of the adaptive management process used by the GRESCSP, which should include a brief description of the process being used, how frequently it occurs, and how decisions are documented for long-term reference. The proponents mention that a supplementation workshop occurs every five years—is this when the GRESCSP evaluates progress and determines if any changes need to occur? If so, are those results summarized and reported somewhere?

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Quantitative findings produced by the project are clearly presented in the “Progress to Date” part of the proposal. For example, the project has met its goal of acclimating and annually releasing 250,000 spring Chinook smolts into Lostine River for 9 out the past 10 years. Additionally, adult returns from HOR smolts have consistently been greater than for NOR adults, indicating that the hatchery program is providing a demographic boost to the Lostine population. However, the most important contribution of the project may be the testing of key assumptions associated with supplementation. Data on HOR and NOR spring/summer Chinook are being used to examine a broad suite of assumptions about the benefits/costs associated with supplementation. These range from assessing and comparing HOR and NOR juvenile and adult survival rates, relative reproductive success, age-at-maturation, maturation timing, spawning ground distribution, productivity, genetic diversity, straying rates, and so on. Results are also being used to parameterize life cycle models.