The ISRP appreciates the proponents’ response to clarify and expand on several issues identified in the initial review. Nevertheless, two points were not addressed completely. The ISRP requests the proponents to provide information on two conditions — 1. Goals and objectives and 5. Use of information from M&E projects — in the next annual report and work plan.

In our preliminary review, we requested responses on the following topics. We provide our final comments based on the response under each of the topics:

1. Goals and objectives 
   
   Condition 1: To meet scientific criteria, the proponents should explicitly describe in the next work plan or annual report how their policies will meet the goals of either an integrated or a segregated hatchery and harvest program for each target species or run. If the ISRP’s question is answered elsewhere, please provide a specific reference. 
   
   Comment: The proponents responded that the overarching goal is two-faceted: harvest and supplementation of natural production. There is a suggestion that the “management of fish disposition” of the returning adults is dependent on the run size. The specifics of the management or decision framework for “fish disposition” under expected run sizes is an important consideration and should be included in future work plans, reports, and proposals. 
   
   
2. Evidence for abandoning volitional release. The ISRP appreciates the explanation and clarification provided by proponents. Please include the details of the response in future work plans and proposals. 
   
   
3. Effect of non-clipped hatchery steelhead on PNI estimates. The response satisfies the ISRP request. We acknowledge the confusion on our part and appreciate the proponents’ explanation. The ISRP was concerned about unclipped (adipose fin) steelhead. The proponents responded that there are no unclipped hatchery steelhead. However, the response by proponents of Project 199000500 indicates that some Chinook salmon, rather than steelhead releases are unclipped. They note that 100% of the unclipped fish receive CWT’s, therefore identification of hatchery-origin fish is an integral part of the program. 
   
   
4. Breeding protocol. The proponents’ response includes the additional information requested and partly satisfies the ISRP’s concern, though the basis for some of the explanation warrants more thorough investigation. The ISRP encourages the proponents to describe the protocol and science-based rationale for size-selective breeding more fully in future reports and proposals. Specifically, there is regional evidence to contradict the proponents’ response that: “A higher percentage of smaller, younger adults have been observed returning in the Basin for years likely due to the random sampling theory for maximizing genetic diversity which leads to long-term selection for younger age at maturity (e.g., increased jack returns).” Chinook salmon have been returning at younger ages and at smaller size for a given age to rivers in Alaska, BC, and in U.S. Pacific Northwest (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4474552/). While it is possible that hatchery practices have contributed to this trend, they have been observed in wild stocks, and the change has largely been attributed to poorer ocean conditions or changing selection pressure owing to size-selective harvest. The contention that size and age at return trends in the Columbia are solely due to random mating practices in hatcheries is questionable. To our knowledge, this conclusion is not supported by data; and therefore, is not a scientifically supported rationale for justifying integrated or a segregated hatchery and harvest program for each target species or run. If the ISRP’s question is answered elsewhere, please provide a specific reference. 
   
   
5. Use of information from M&E projects
   
   Condition 2: The proponents should describe the types of M&E information used in project evaluation and adjustment, and the sources of that information be included as part of the next annual report, work plan, and future proposals. Specifically, we seek a description of which specific M&E activities are relevant to this project and how that specific set of information is used to inform future production actions (adaptive management). In short, the ISRP requests additional information needed to understand whether the fish released (either directly or after grow-out at the satellite facilities) are surviving and returning at the expected rates. Metrics – such as PNI, pHOS, pNOS, survival, productivity, and others important to performance of the satellite facilities – are measurable. Those results should be referenced and summarized in the context of the proposed work for this project. This request for information is specific to this project and not related to the ISRP’s request for M&E matrices and summaries. 
   
   Comment: The proponents responded that the information the ISRP requested will need to be provided by other M&E projects. We recognize that the information may be available from other projects (or elsewhere). However, we are trying to determine how decisions in this project are made within an adaptive management framework. By specifically describing the M&E that informs implementation of this project, the proponents can connect the effectiveness of hatchery production with the goals and objectives for the subbasin. The proponents did not present additional information that indicates how the proponents use information from other M&E projects for evaluation and adjustment or a narrative about decisions linked to outcomes identified through M&E. The ISRP recommends that the proponents coordinate with the related projects to provide requested information in the next annual report, work plan, and future proposals.  
   
   
6. Pacific lamprey restoration. The proponents’ response satisfies the ISRP’s request for additional information and clarification regarding holding Pacific lamprey vs. steelhead at the Minthorn facility.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment: 

This is a long-standing project that has gone through periodic ISRP review. The role of the Satellite Facilities is tied to a broader framework for the Umatilla River subbasin that is found in the subbasin plan and the various vision documents for the Umatilla River. It is also directly linked to Umatilla Hatchery project (198903500), and several others providing passage to juveniles and adults. The proponents indicate that the primary goal is to allow imprinting of artificially produced fish to specific locations within the subbasin, thereby facilitating return to multiple tributaries rather than to the hatchery outflow. Water limitation issues at the Umatilla Fish Hatchery partly necessitates the use of offsite satellite facilities as well.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following in a point-by-point response to assist our review of the proposal:

1. Goals and objectives. The proposal presents contradictory information when comparing overall goals and implementation objectives for each of the target species and run. For example, the proponents refer to the Umatilla River Fish Restoration Program and indicate that the overarching goal is natural sustainability. However, the objectives herein appear to be focused more on ensuring harvest and broodstock availability. How do these policies meet the goals of either an integrated or segregated hatchery and harvest program for each target species or run? 
   
   If the overarching goal has shifted, the ISRP requests proponents explain why, and how the new goal aligns with the most current Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan (or others if they supersede the UWSP). 
   
   Ultimately, the satellite facilities receive juveniles from a variety of sources produced elsewhere (e.g., Umatilla Fish Hatchery, and outlined in Project 198903500 to which the ISRP has requested a response). While the current project does not produce the fish in question, the ISRP highly recommends proponents of this and related projects to coordinate their responses to ensure a unified understanding of subbasin activities. 
   
   
2. Evidence for abandoning volitional release. The proponents indicate that volitional releases were abandoned in 2012 in favor of a single-day forced release for each production lot. During the presentation, the proponents indicated that the facilities were not well designed for volitional releases and a portion of the juveniles did not leave the facility. The ISRP requests the proponents coordinate with the M&E projects in the subbasin for a summary of data and analysis to illustrate the effect and support for this decision, especially in regard to survival, productivity, and return rate. Furthermore, has a facility design retrofit been explored, if that is primary rationale for abandoning volitional release? Last, how is the schedule of forced release determined and are they set to maximize productivity, return rates, or other criteria? 
   
   
3. Effect of non-clipped hatchery steelhead on PNI estimates. The proposal indicates that a proportion of hatchery produced steelhead are not adipose-clipped to ensure a proportion of these fish will avoid the recreational harvest and return to contribute to natural production. It is unclear to the ISRP how non-clipped fish affect their PNI estimates for hatchery broodstock and for spawners in the wild. Do these unclipped fish receive a coded wire tag or other mark that permits identification as HOR by project staff, even though anglers might not recognize them as HOR? Or is a Constant Marking Fraction approach employed? Additional description of how unclipped steelhead are accounted for in the calculation of PNI in broodstock, and the proportion of hatchery origin fish spawning naturally, is requested. 
   
   
4. Breeding protocol. Production for each species is guided nominally by an HGMP, including a breeding protocol. During the presentation, it was suggested that large males used for brood may be paired with multiple females for spawning. This appears to be inconsistent with maximizing effective number of breeders, an important approach to avoid genetic bottlenecks. Regardless, the ISRP requests information (data and analysis) on how often a departure from a 1:1 breeding scheme occurs and its predicted impact to self-sustainability or harvest. 
   
   
5. Use of information from M&E projects. The proposal indicates that other projects are conducting biological M&E objectives. Here, proponents of this and the M&E projects (199000500, 198902401, and perhaps others as appropriate) should coordinate to lay out specifically which M&E activities are relevant to this project and how that specific set of information is used to inform future production actions (adaptive management). In short, the ISRP requests additional information needed to understand whether the fish released (either directly or after grow-out at the satellite facilities) are surviving and returning at the expected rates. 
   
   
6. Pacific lamprey restoration. During the presentation, the proponents indicated that Minthorn facility has been transferred to the Pacific lamprey restoration effort. None of the projects in the subbasin appear to have objectives related to Pacific lamprey. It may be covered by a separate set of proposals (other than those reviewed in this cycle), but it is worth describing these and their ecosystem relationship to current objectives, such as ecosystem function and cultural values. In the proposal’s summary, Minthorn facility is described as an adult holding facility for summer steelhead. Is this still the case? If not, the summary needs to be revised.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

This project, operated by CTUIR-DNR, is part of the suite of projects for the Umatilla River Subbasin. As an O&M project, it operates and maintains the Satellite Facilities for rearing of hatchery fish produced and bred at ODFW hatchery facilities (198903500 Umatilla Fish Hatchery, along with fish from Oxbow, Cascade, and Bonneville hatcheries). The goal is to allow imprinting of artificially produced fish to specific locations within the subbasin, thereby facilitating return to multiple tributary reaches rather than the hatchery outflow.

As an O&M project, the objectives are appropriate, albeit not presented in a SMART format. However, the elements of the SMART format are found in the Production Goals (Tables 6 & 7). For example, the first objective (OBJ-1) is stated as “Increase adult salmon and steelhead survival and homing to the Umatilla River basin.” This is more of a general goal rather than a Specific and Measurable objective. Reconfiguring the objective (perhaps with subobjectives for each satellite facility) will be reasonably straightforward given the M&E elements in the subbasin (199000500 Umatilla Hatchery M&E and 198902401 Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration). Similarly, for OBJ-2, some additional specificity is included in Tables 6 and 7. Again, the information is there, it simply can be recast with a minor revision in future annual reports and future proposals.

One issue the ISRP recommends in future proposals, work plans, and annual reports (not specifically requiring a response here) is to cast the rationale for the goals and objectives as an integrated or a segregated hatchery program for each species and location. In the response to a previous ISRP review, when asked whether the goal of self-sustaining populations will be met in the future, the proponents state that this is not their purview, but instead that this is a question for "RM&E.” For ISRP reviewers, the issues to be addressed are often not apparent until key statements are made in proposals like this, distant from the RM&E proposal (199000500). The current proposal should not simply suggest that biological response is measured elsewhere, but rather point to critical finding(s) of that M&E as it applies to the O&M projects. These goals and objectives, in fact, have measurable benchmarks or metrics that can be monitored and reported (e.g., PNI, pHOS, pNOS, survival, productivity, and so on).

Specifically, for Chinook salmon, the proposal refers to production as part of the Umatilla Fish Restoration Program. It appears that co-managers have abandoned attempts to develop self-sustaining populations (of extirpated runs) and aim to produce fish primarily for harvest. As an example, for spring Chinook (see p. 17) broodstock are taken from NOR and a variety of marked hatchery fish (Adipose only, Adipose + CWT, CWT only), which means that all types of fish are mixed. In contrast, for coho, no NOR are collected for broodstock (see Request 1 above). Given this, how do these policies specifically meet the goals of either an integrated or segregated hatchery program for each species or run?

Q2: Methods

As described, the methods for the Satellite Facilities are well described and are sufficient for an operational program. Any concerns the ISRP has regarding operational methods relates to program rationale and desired outcomes in the basin (described above). The ISRP recognizes that co-managers operate and maintain different facilities within the subbasin. However, projects in the subbasin warrant a unified and coordinated strategy that dictates operations.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

As an O&M project, most of the direct M&E is conducted within the facilities as implementation M&E (rather than effectiveness M&E), which is conducted in other projects (i.e., 199000500 Umatilla Hatchery M&E and others). The schedule for in-facility monitoring is ongoing or at monthly intervals, which is a reasonable practice (BMP).

To clarify this relationship, the ISRP suggests that in future reports and proposals the proponents include and discuss the diagram in the Section 5 of Project 198903500 that illustrates how all of the Umatilla River Subbasin projects relate to each other. Alternatively, Table 2 in Project 199802401 provides a tabular summary of these interrelationships.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The benefits fish and wildlife demonstrate modest (albeit, lower than originally proposed) return rates for artificially produced summer steelhead, fall, and spring Chinook.