[env-trinity] TRRP Science Advisory Board comments on 1st Annual Science Symposium

[Rod Wittler]

I received this letter belatedly today from the Science Advisory Board regarding the recently completed 1st Annual Science Symposium. - rjw


Rodney J. Wittler
Senior Scientist, Technical Modeling and Analysis Group
Trinity River Restoration Program
P.O. Box 1300, or 1313 S. Main St.
Weaverville, CA 96093

February 21, 2007

Dear Rod:

Thank you for inviting us to your First Annual Science Symposium. We found it interesting, informative, and very well organized. As it was our first holistic view of the recent work in assessments and modeling, it allows us a chance to comment on the Program's science program as represented by the various presentations and our informal conversations with participants.

The broad range in topics illustrates the comprehensive nature of the Program. This is especially so given the relatively narrow scope directed by the Record of Decision. The history of Trinity River efforts and longevity of many participants could have lead to a monolithic "group think" situation, but diverse experience from all involved maintains awareness of the enormous complexity involved with just increasing salmonids; other potentially impacted resources add to the complexity. Given this complexity, limited time, and funding, there will always be tension between focusing on the overall "experiment", i.e., increasing rearing habitat will increase returns of natural anadromous salmonids, and other factors that could affect these returns. As we see it, there are several working hypotheses besides the primary one involving rearing habitat.

Even if there was enough funding to test every hypothesis, simultaneous testing is difficult or impossible because of the inherent experimental design: there is only one river, so most field-based treatments must be spread out over time unless their effects can be truly separated spatially. Given the limited amount of replication, the Program should be careful to weigh the benefits of additional tests and their impact on the primary test associated with the Record of Decision.

We noted a wide range of relevance to the Program's mission and of scientific rigor in the work as presented. A justification process like the one in the draft Integrated Assessment Plan should screen out future, less-relevant projects, and rigor can be increased with input from Expert Review Panels. Projects with acceptable relevance can be conducted directly by staff or developed by cooperators. 

Although there is much expertise among the Program's staff, there may be limited time for them to develop all of the individual assessment projects ― especially their methods. For relevant projects, we suggest a focus on developing the ecological model and related hypotheses, identifying potential indicators and attributes, and keeping up with existing published information and data to prevent duplication of effort. There is no definite, exact way to prioritize the numerous assessments being considered, but an objective ranking system with input or review by independent experts should streamline the process.

An assessment's priority depends partly on its cost, which is not fully known until the assessment is developed. Cost depends on the inherent variability of the attribute(s), the desired precision of the estimate, and the effort involved with obtaining it. If necessary, scaled-down pilot studies can provide insight into variability, and an ecological model should help define expected effect sizes or sensitivity to treatments. 

Again, we were impressed by the amount and diversity of the work and thinking seen at the Symposium, and it can only improve with a better process for selecting, developing, and conducting assessments. The IAP should greatly aid this process, and we look to seeing an updated IAP and any future work of the Program.

Sincerely,

Edmund Andrews, Josh Korman, and Michael Merigliano